|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 26 2014 22:46 oneofthem wrote:
well yea, but just as an individual has private urges/core self interests, as well as abstract morality, national level politics is not a unified will either. i wouldn't even call it mostly for show, because taht would imply conscious designed manipulative appearance.
that's not what the u.s. does most of the time. there are actually decent and caring people. active public image manipulation is what china and russia do. the U.S. and europe are still the source of give a damn-ness when it comes to humanity and related abstractions.
I think you are conflating people's opinions of their actions with the putative actions themselves. Even if you sincerely believe that opening up a country's markets to American investment dollars (properly protected of course by subordinating others), privatizing of natural resources, and forcing a liberal democratic form of government, you aren't absolved from charges of economic imperialism and exploitation. Harmful ignorance is still harmful despite the best intentions. The US and Europe's invisible but destructively pernicious ideological frameworks are probably definitely more harmful to human rights and democracy than all the ridiculous farce of Russia and China.
Don't tell me that you're a good person because you are really active in the microfinancing world, buying goats for families in Africa in exchange for an IOU.
|
On June 27 2014 08:35 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 27 2014 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not to mention, for the right, it's almost always a one way street.
For instance bonuses paid to financial firm employees who lied, cheated, openly sold products they knew were practically worthless, and nearly destroyed the global economy "Needed to be paid to preserve contract law"
But when you have legally negotiated contracts for employees who actually worked hard and produced something for decades then it's all "Unions should of known they weren't going to honor their contracts, excessive, unrealistic, blah, blah, blah," Unions in Detroit and at GM had very favorable outcomes - they were put far ahead of bondholders even though doing so had dubious legal ground to stand on, from what I've read. State and local employment contracts sometimes need to be modified before bankruptcy happens - otherwise everyone becomes worse off. Also, cars are not 100% defect free and perfectly safe, and yet they are regularly sold. There is a context in which things are sold, and the selling of financial products between sophisticated parties isn't like selling a hamburger to a consumer. Selling a "bad" product can be both completely legitimate and desirable for society. Edit: I'm not arguing with your other points, just this bit of populism. The core problem with the GM Union issue a few years back was the original deals were made when GM was making more money then they knew what to do with and there labor negotiations were basically them giving everything the union asked for to prevent any potential hiccups instead of doing there job and negotiating or researching long term costs because they just assumed there crazy profit margin would continue forever.
That's an absurd characterization. It sounds like some pseudotruth strand spun by a conservative and repeated ad nauseum on Fox News. To think that GM wouldn't "negotiate or research long term costs" demonstrates extreme gullibility.
|
On June 27 2014 09:39 zlefin wrote:
My other question in my first paragraph remains.
As to potential issues with the clauses, it's hard to say for certain as I have not read the finer details of the case. I shall look through the details a bit, and have a post explaining the concerns later.
I don't want to answer the question because it's just bait that's going to take away from something worth discussing. So I'll give it to you once.
If Tea Party types were merely in it for the partisan game they wouldn't oppose the establishment in "their" party. I'm not going to speak for Republicans, but as a conservative I don't view Tea Party "obstruction" as mere partisanship. It's not just opposition to Obama, considering the movement has roots in anger over the Bush bailouts (and still opposes them). That's all I'm going to say on the matter (hopefully).
|
On June 27 2014 09:49 IgnE wrote:
The US and Europe's invisible but destructively pernicious ideological frameworks are probably definitely more harmful to human rights and democracy than all the ridiculous farce of Russia and China.
Well Russia and China are doing the same thing, but without the human rights and democracy, so I wouldn't go as far as saying the West is acting worse than Russia and China. That it's all about influence and not spreading glorious peace & freedom is very true, though.
|
On June 27 2014 08:57 zlefin wrote:
It certainly is good to have unanimous rulings; much better for the country. Wish we had more of them; there's still too many 5-4 rulings.
Though I haven't read the finer details of the case. Of course the supreme court only rules on constitutionality, not on whether something is a good or bad idea; so I have no idea on that point.
Well, I can't say what the president's logic was in doing it in the first place; but to call it scary is just more partisanship from you side; rather than looking at the reasons for it and issues it raises, and what future improvements could be made to the system.
While the decision on the appointments were unanimous the justifications were not. The technicalities regarding these appointments has long passed ridiculous. None of this would of even happened if these people just got an up or down vote when they should of...
|
On June 27 2014 10:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 09:39 zlefin wrote:
My other question in my first paragraph remains.
As to potential issues with the clauses, it's hard to say for certain as I have not read the finer details of the case. I shall look through the details a bit, and have a post explaining the concerns later. I don't want to answer the question because it's just bait that's going to take away from something worth discussing. So I'll give it to you once. If Tea Party types were merely in it for the partisan game they wouldn't oppose the establishment in "their" party. I'm not going to speak for Republicans, but as a conservative I don't view Tea Party "obstruction" as mere partisanship. It's not just opposition to Obama, considering the movement has roots in anger over the Bush bailouts (and still opposes them). That's all I'm going to say on the matter (hopefully).
I disagree with calling it bait. Calling out people on doing bad things is good. Accepting the faults of those on your side is important. A core principle of finding truth and empiricism is the willingness to accept being wrong.
Also, I said republicans, not tea party republicans; so you falsely assume which ones I identify as a source of the problem. From what I've seen; while individual tea partiers may be more prone to obstruction; the source of obstructionism seems to be the institutional behavior in establishment republican party (at the federal level, it does not seem to apply at the state and local levels).
|
On June 27 2014 10:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 10:02 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2014 09:39 zlefin wrote:
My other question in my first paragraph remains.
As to potential issues with the clauses, it's hard to say for certain as I have not read the finer details of the case. I shall look through the details a bit, and have a post explaining the concerns later. I don't want to answer the question because it's just bait that's going to take away from something worth discussing. So I'll give it to you once. If Tea Party types were merely in it for the partisan game they wouldn't oppose the establishment in "their" party. I'm not going to speak for Republicans, but as a conservative I don't view Tea Party "obstruction" as mere partisanship. It's not just opposition to Obama, considering the movement has roots in anger over the Bush bailouts (and still opposes them). That's all I'm going to say on the matter (hopefully). I disagree with calling it bait. Calling out people on doing bad things is good. Accepting the faults of those on your side is important. A core principle of finding truth and empiricism is the willingness to accept being wrong. Also, I said republicans, not tea party republicans; so you falsely assume which ones I identify as a source of the problem. From what I've seen; while individual tea partiers may be more prone to obstruction; the source of obstructionism seems to be the institutional behavior in establishment republican party (at the federal level, it does not seem to apply at the state and local levels).
I called it bait because it moved too far from the case being discussed. You opened up the discussion to the whole swath of obstruction- you didn't provide any constraining conditions that made it relevant.
While the decision on the appointments were unanimous the justifications were not. The technicalities regarding these appointments has long passed ridiculous. None of this would of even happened if these people just got an up or down vote when they should of...
The justification was the same, the extent to which it applied was the difference, from what I've read so far.
It's just that the majority said he should have more discretion. So no, the logic was not horribly different on the ruling itself. While the difference is important ( I fully agree with the Scalia opinion) both said the president did not have the power to make that appointment.
Subject to change as I continue reading.
Edit: Note that I think Scalia raises important questions and concerns about the nature of the clause, but it still seems to me that the core logic is the same. "Under the appointments clause, the president may not appoint someone in a intra-session break lasting only 3 days."
When I think of different justifications, I think of something like Obamacare, where some thought the mandate was simply constitutional under the commerce clause while Roberts said it was justified as a tax.
|
As to the topic of recess appointments, and constitutional issues; there does seem to be a concern needing addressing.
Looking through
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/fl/What-are-lsquoPro-Formarsquo-Sessions-in-Congress.htm
helped me get a sense of things; as well as reviewing the constitution.
The purpose of recess appointments, at a basic level, seems clear: so that important posts don't stay vacant for long periods of time, when congress isn't there to vote on nominees. Early on, the congress only met for several months a year; thus leaving a quite large gap of time during which positions might need filling.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, congress were to do the following:
complete the budget, and any other vital business (thus assuring no cause to be called into emergency session)
Hold Pro Forma sessions for 9 months;
Then the president would not be able to do recess appointments, as congress is officially in session; however congress isn't actually considering anything; so they would not vote on appointments. This would thus leave important posts that become unfilled vacant for an extended period of time; thus nullifying the purpose of recess appointments.
What would you make of this scenario?
From what I can see; this would appear to be a constitutional action on the part of congress; though clearly a wrongful one, done by abusing a loophole.
Personally, I am unsure how the effects of Article 1 Sec 5 par 1 quorum requirements affect things.
Paragraph 4 only seems to cover adjournments, not general inaction.
There are many potential fixes, none of which I have thoroughly thought through;
for instance: if a quorum is not present for 3 consecutive business days in both houses, then congress shall automatically be considered in adjournment.
|
On June 27 2014 10:29 zlefin wrote:As to the topic of recess appointments, and constitutional issues; there does seem to be a concern needing addressing. Looking through http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/fl/What-are-lsquoPro-Formarsquo-Sessions-in-Congress.htmhelped me get a sense of things; as well as reviewing the constitution. The purpose of recess appointments, at a basic level, seems clear: so that important posts don't stay vacant for long periods of time, when congress isn't there to vote on nominees. Early on, the congress only met for several months a year; thus leaving a quite large gap of time during which positions might need filling. Suppose, for the sake of argument, congress were to do the following: complete the budget, and any other vital business (thus assuring no cause to be called into emergency session) Hold Pro Forma sessions for 9 months; Then the president would not be able to do recess appointments, as congress is officially in session; however congress isn't actually considering anything; so they would not vote on appointments. This would thus leave important posts that become unfilled vacant for an extended period of time; thus nullifying the purpose of recess appointments. What would you make of this scenario? From what I can see; this would appear to be a constitutional action on the part of congress; though clearly a wrongful one, done by abusing a loophole. Personally, I am unsure how the effects of Article 1 Sec 5 par 1 quorum requirements affect things. Paragraph 4 only seems to cover adjournments, not general inaction. There are many potential fixes, none of which I have thoroughly thought through; for instance: if a quorum is not present for 3 consecutive business days in both houses, then congress shall automatically be considered in adjournment.
When has that ever happened? This is where you would agree with the majority and not Scalia, but we don't see these sessions lasting that long.
For my part, I wasn't originally discussing the different opinions, just the overall judgement. According to the majority, the concern you raise here is one of the prime reasons they ruled the way they did. So no fix needed, as of now. (EDIT: FALSE. I CAN'T READ.)
Like I said, my opinion is in line with Scalia, and the easiest response to your concern is that 9 month periods of pro forma sessions don't happen.
|
My reading of the opinions was that there were 2 main points of disagreement between the majority and the concurrence. The first was intra vs inter session recesses. The majority upheld intra-session recess appointments on the grounds of historical practice, and the concurrence disagreed on textualist grounds. The second was the timing of the vacancy. The majority upheld the practice of making recess appointments to offices that were vacant before the recess started, and the concurrence said that the vacancy must occur during the recess for a recess appointment to be constitutional.
The recess appointment power is a lot stronger with this opinion than if the concurrence was the majority opinion. It would be extremely limited if the decision went the other way. Based on this ruling, though, the Senate has the power to effectively deny the President any recess appointments by holding pro-forma sessions like the ones at issue in this case.
|
making edits in response to details I missed
On June 27 2014 10:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 10:29 zlefin wrote:As to the topic of recess appointments, and constitutional issues; there does seem to be a concern needing addressing. Looking through http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/fl/What-are-lsquoPro-Formarsquo-Sessions-in-Congress.htmhelped me get a sense of things; as well as reviewing the constitution. The purpose of recess appointments, at a basic level, seems clear: so that important posts don't stay vacant for long periods of time, when congress isn't there to vote on nominees. Early on, the congress only met for several months a year; thus leaving a quite large gap of time during which positions might need filling. Suppose, for the sake of argument, congress were to do the following: complete the budget, and any other vital business (thus assuring no cause to be called into emergency session) Hold Pro Forma sessions for 9 months; Then the president would not be able to do recess appointments, as congress is officially in session; however congress isn't actually considering anything; so they would not vote on appointments. This would thus leave important posts that become unfilled vacant for an extended period of time; thus nullifying the purpose of recess appointments. What would you make of this scenario? From what I can see; this would appear to be a constitutional action on the part of congress; though clearly a wrongful one, done by abusing a loophole. Personally, I am unsure how the effects of Article 1 Sec 5 par 1 quorum requirements affect things. Paragraph 4 only seems to cover adjournments, not general inaction. There are many potential fixes, none of which I have thoroughly thought through; for instance: if a quorum is not present for 3 consecutive business days in both houses, then congress shall automatically be considered in adjournment. When has that ever happened? This is where you would agree with the majority and not Scalia, but we don't see these sessions lasting that long. For my part, I wasn't originally discussing the different opinions, just the overall judgement. According to the majority, the concern you raise here is one of the prime reasons they ruled the way they did. So no fix needed, as of now. Like I said, my opinion is in line with Scalia, and the easiest response to your concern is that 9 month periods of pro forma sessions don't happen.
I consider that a non-answer.
The question was how you would deal with the hypothetical case: your response is it hasn't happened.
There is a potential abuse just lying in wait; how would you deal with it if it occurred? Which side would you rule with?
Fixing things for clarity is good. It's best to fix problems before they become an issue; instead of waiting until some assholes decide to make it an issue.It would also be good to fix the text in the constitution to clarify and specify whether it applies to positions vacant before the recess, or only vacancies that occur during the recess.
As to the issue on my earlier question; it is very apropos to the discussion:
It was in response to your earlier posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=22453921
and
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=22454010
and the last line of that one
So yea, I'm happy. Because it was common sense and the rule of law that won, instead of petty partisanship.
as well as xdaunts prior posts on the topic a couple pages back.
Those make the question of how you would feel if the republicans would do less petty partisanship pertinent;
in particular it helps establish whether you are actually against petty partisanship, or are merely engaging in the
usual sniping of the other side, and are happy that your side won.
Everyone can claim to be against partisanship; it's like being for puppies and kittens, it's not a claim that means much; it's when you call out the poor behavior on your own side that it has true meaning. And this is important for recognizing and distinguishing people who are truly against petty partisanship, and those who merely say so because it sounds good, but are really just for their own side. Which is important in general for constructing a good government. Which is clearly pertinent to the thread.
|
On June 27 2014 11:04 zlefin wrote:making edits in response to details I missed Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 10:35 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2014 10:29 zlefin wrote:As to the topic of recess appointments, and constitutional issues; there does seem to be a concern needing addressing. Looking through http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/fl/What-are-lsquoPro-Formarsquo-Sessions-in-Congress.htmhelped me get a sense of things; as well as reviewing the constitution. The purpose of recess appointments, at a basic level, seems clear: so that important posts don't stay vacant for long periods of time, when congress isn't there to vote on nominees. Early on, the congress only met for several months a year; thus leaving a quite large gap of time during which positions might need filling. Suppose, for the sake of argument, congress were to do the following: complete the budget, and any other vital business (thus assuring no cause to be called into emergency session) Hold Pro Forma sessions for 9 months; Then the president would not be able to do recess appointments, as congress is officially in session; however congress isn't actually considering anything; so they would not vote on appointments. This would thus leave important posts that become unfilled vacant for an extended period of time; thus nullifying the purpose of recess appointments. What would you make of this scenario? From what I can see; this would appear to be a constitutional action on the part of congress; though clearly a wrongful one, done by abusing a loophole. Personally, I am unsure how the effects of Article 1 Sec 5 par 1 quorum requirements affect things. Paragraph 4 only seems to cover adjournments, not general inaction. There are many potential fixes, none of which I have thoroughly thought through; for instance: if a quorum is not present for 3 consecutive business days in both houses, then congress shall automatically be considered in adjournment. When has that ever happened? This is where you would agree with the majority and not Scalia, but we don't see these sessions lasting that long. For my part, I wasn't originally discussing the different opinions, just the overall judgement. According to the majority, the concern you raise here is one of the prime reasons they ruled the way they did. So no fix needed, as of now. Like I said, my opinion is in line with Scalia, and the easiest response to your concern is that 9 month periods of pro forma sessions don't happen. I consider that a non-answer. The question was how you would deal with the hypothetical case: your response is it hasn't happened. There is a potential abuse just lying in wait; how would you deal with it if it occurred? Which side would you rule with? Fixing things for clarity is good. It's best to fix problems before they become an issue; instead of waiting until some assholes decide to make it an issue.It would also be good to fix the text in the constitution to clarify and specify whether it applies to positions vacant before the recess, or only vacancies that occur during the recess. As to the issue on my earlier question; it is very apropos to the discussion: It was in response to your earlier posts http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=22453921and http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=22454010and the last line of that one So yea, I'm happy. Because it was common sense and the rule of law that won, instead of petty partisanship. as well as xdaunts prior posts on the topic a couple pages back. Those make the question of how you would feel if the republicans would do less petty partisanship pertinent; in particular it helps establish whether you are actually against petty partisanship, or are merely engaging in the usual sniping of the other side, and are happy that your side won. Everyone can claim to be against partisanship; it's like being for puppies and kittens, it's not a claim that means much; it's when you call out the poor behavior on your own side that it has true meaning. And this is important for recognizing and distinguishing people who are truly against petty partisanship, and those who merely say so because it sounds good, but are really just for their own side. Which is important in general for constructing a good government. Which is clearly pertinent to the thread.
Of course it's a non-answer, it's not a useful question. If you stretch something to absurdity then you certainly get dicey situations, but that's true with everything. I haven't thought about it, and I see no reason to do so. It seems to me on cursory inspection that it would still be unconstitutional. It's not "lying in wait."
If we come across that issue, then we make the necessary, legal adjustments, instead of protecting against something that no one predicts to ever happen.
No, you moved on from discussing the case to asking a broad question about Republicans generally. It was relevant to the discussion when the case was first mentioned (edit: particular concerns were relevant, not your question), but to go from that to a question about obstruction and refusing to govern was too broad- almost any topic could have fit in that box.
There is overlap, true. But I wasn't discussing that.
I answered your question anyway, but you ignored my answer and went on (as I wanted. I hate that topic). I never mentioned Democrats or Republicans, and one thing I despise is trying to spin everything into that framework. That's why I called your question bait, and that's why I say petty partisanship lost. Moreover, I said I agree with the Scalia opinion, which certainly run counter to the actions of past Republicans. So yes, I'm happy, but not because Republicans "won", but because the Constitution was upheld, for the most part.
Not everything is partisan and when something is partisan it's pretty obvious. I've hardly been a water boy for any party.
Anyway, your concern is now useless, since the court addressed it. So unless you think they didn't go far enough, perhaps you don't have any "fixes" to propose?
(EDIT: FALSE. EYES BROKEN)
EDIT: perhaps a "fix" for this concern that I don't see as being particularly worrying would be to amend the clause to give it a definite time period. "if a position left from a vacancy during a recess lasts longer than...."
|
On June 27 2014 10:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 10:10 zlefin wrote:On June 27 2014 10:02 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2014 09:39 zlefin wrote:
My other question in my first paragraph remains.
As to potential issues with the clauses, it's hard to say for certain as I have not read the finer details of the case. I shall look through the details a bit, and have a post explaining the concerns later. I don't want to answer the question because it's just bait that's going to take away from something worth discussing. So I'll give it to you once. If Tea Party types were merely in it for the partisan game they wouldn't oppose the establishment in "their" party. I'm not going to speak for Republicans, but as a conservative I don't view Tea Party "obstruction" as mere partisanship. It's not just opposition to Obama, considering the movement has roots in anger over the Bush bailouts (and still opposes them). That's all I'm going to say on the matter (hopefully). I disagree with calling it bait. Calling out people on doing bad things is good. Accepting the faults of those on your side is important. A core principle of finding truth and empiricism is the willingness to accept being wrong. Also, I said republicans, not tea party republicans; so you falsely assume which ones I identify as a source of the problem. From what I've seen; while individual tea partiers may be more prone to obstruction; the source of obstructionism seems to be the institutional behavior in establishment republican party (at the federal level, it does not seem to apply at the state and local levels). I called it bait because it moved too far from the case being discussed. You opened up the discussion to the whole swath of obstruction- you didn't provide any constraining conditions that made it relevant. Show nested quote +While the decision on the appointments were unanimous the justifications were not. The technicalities regarding these appointments has long passed ridiculous. None of this would of even happened if these people just got an up or down vote when they should of... The justification was the same, the extent to which it applied was the difference, from what I've read so far. It's just that the majority said he should have more discretion. So no, the logic was not horribly different on the ruling itself. While the difference is important ( I fully agree with the Scalia opinion) both said the president did not have the power to make that appointment. Subject to change as I continue reading. Edit: Note that I think Scalia raises important questions and concerns about the nature of the clause, but it still seems to me that the core logic is the same. "Under the appointments clause, the president may not appoint someone in a intra-session break lasting only 3 days." When I think of different justifications, I think of something like Obamacare, where some thought the mandate was simply constitutional under the commerce clause while Roberts said it was justified as a tax.
Yeah my word choice was poor, I was in a bit of a rush, but thought the 5-4 aspect was being left out while still having significance.
I think Z has more or less pointed it out. It's not as if congress had been going about a normal appointment process, this was a clear response to obstruction. The supreme court slapped it down as they should have, but many issues remain. Z's question is quite pertinent and presents the issue in a way that is enlightening towards ones perspective.
|
If it's obvious when things are partisan, and you are not for one party, why do you refuse to say "yes, some of the republicans have been engaging in a lot of petty partisan activities"?
Given that current republicans frequently go against things that reagan (who they claim to support) was for; holding opinions counter to the actions of past republicans does not count for much.
And my concern is not at all useless; and preventing things from happening before they become a problem has obvious value. Since you choose to ignore that; as well as ignoring my legitimate questions and provide non-answers frequently.
You also misrepresent the court's position re my concerns; as the court ruled that congress could in fact use continuous proforma sessions to thwart the ability of the president to ever do recess appointments.
"The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case: whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding “pro forma” sessions – that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done – every three days. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal government’s argument that the “pro forma” sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the president’s recess appointments powers. In the Court’s view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions."
from http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/
As such, I find you engage in too much dissembling and dodging to be worth discussing with. And I shall try to refrain from discussing with you further (though I usually have difficulty doing so)
|
On June 27 2014 11:36 zlefin wrote:If it's obvious when things are partisan, and you are not for one party, why do you refuse to say "yes, some of the republicans have been engaging in a lot of petty partisan activities"? Given that current republicans frequently go against things that reagan (who they claim to support) was for; holding opinions counter to the actions of past republicans does not count for much. And my concern is not at all useless; and preventing things from happening before they become a problem has obvious value. Since you choose to ignore that; as well as ignoring my legitimate questions and provide non-answers frequently. You also misrepresent the court's position re my concerns; as the court ruled that congress could in fact use continuous proforma sessions to thwart the ability of the president to ever do recess appointments. "The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case: whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding “pro forma” sessions – that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done – every three days. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal government’s argument that the “pro forma” sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the president’s recess appointments powers. In the Court’s view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions." from http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/As such, I find you engage in too much dissembling and dodging to be worth discussing with. And I shall try to refrain from discussing with you further (though I usually have difficulty doing so)
Whoops, I misread something when I thought the Court addressed that. You are right. I actually like the ruling more now.
Thankfully I still contend that the question is really not an issue. Nonetheless, I proposed a "fix." What I would not support is the adoption of power merely due to obstruction.
You seem to find many people not worth your time to continue discussion, as that is your favorite line... I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'm not dodging. I answered your question the relevant way. You want me to admit that Republicans are only obstructing for partisanship's sake. I have no idea and don't speak for the mainstream republican- and I told you that the Tea Party types are not opposing Obama for purely political reasons. Question answered.
Wanting me to answer a question about Republicans generally is a partisan endeavor. I will say this, the Republican leadership has shown itself to be more concerned about it's own well being than anything else- both against Democrats and Tea Partiers.
|
On June 27 2014 11:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 11:36 zlefin wrote:If it's obvious when things are partisan, and you are not for one party, why do you refuse to say "yes, some of the republicans have been engaging in a lot of petty partisan activities"? Given that current republicans frequently go against things that reagan (who they claim to support) was for; holding opinions counter to the actions of past republicans does not count for much. And my concern is not at all useless; and preventing things from happening before they become a problem has obvious value. Since you choose to ignore that; as well as ignoring my legitimate questions and provide non-answers frequently. You also misrepresent the court's position re my concerns; as the court ruled that congress could in fact use continuous proforma sessions to thwart the ability of the president to ever do recess appointments. "The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case: whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding “pro forma” sessions – that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done – every three days. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal government’s argument that the “pro forma” sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the president’s recess appointments powers. In the Court’s view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions." from http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/As such, I find you engage in too much dissembling and dodging to be worth discussing with. And I shall try to refrain from discussing with you further (though I usually have difficulty doing so) Whoops, I misread something when I thought the Court addressed that. You are right. I actually like the ruling more now. Thankfully I still contend that the question is really not an issue. Nonetheless, I proposed a "fix." What I would not support is the adoption of power merely due to obstruction. You seem to find many people not worth your time to continue discussion, as that is your favorite line... I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not dodging. I answered your question the relevant way. You want me to admit that Republicans are only obstructing for partisanship's sake. I have no idea and don't speak for the mainstream republican- and I told you that the Tea Party types are not opposing Obama for purely political reasons. Question answered.
Are you saying they/you had specific objections to appointing these people? Just curious what were they?
He didn't try to go around congress for the fun of it, what are the strong objections to just giving these people up or down votes?
I suppose if the position is based on a general obstruction of Obama regardless whether there are any legitimate objections to an appointment (let alone just a vote) and that the constitution protects that obstruction indefinitely that's one thing.
It sounds like (based on your solution) that you don't think these tactics should be able to be used indefinitely. How long should appointment votes be able to be delayed leaving positions vacant based on opposition grounded on whatever reasons you would give to these ones? A rough estimate is fine: 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 2 terms?
|
On June 27 2014 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 11:44 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2014 11:36 zlefin wrote:If it's obvious when things are partisan, and you are not for one party, why do you refuse to say "yes, some of the republicans have been engaging in a lot of petty partisan activities"? Given that current republicans frequently go against things that reagan (who they claim to support) was for; holding opinions counter to the actions of past republicans does not count for much. And my concern is not at all useless; and preventing things from happening before they become a problem has obvious value. Since you choose to ignore that; as well as ignoring my legitimate questions and provide non-answers frequently. You also misrepresent the court's position re my concerns; as the court ruled that congress could in fact use continuous proforma sessions to thwart the ability of the president to ever do recess appointments. "The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case: whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding “pro forma” sessions – that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done – every three days. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal government’s argument that the “pro forma” sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the president’s recess appointments powers. In the Court’s view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions." from http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/As such, I find you engage in too much dissembling and dodging to be worth discussing with. And I shall try to refrain from discussing with you further (though I usually have difficulty doing so) Whoops, I misread something when I thought the Court addressed that. You are right. I actually like the ruling more now. Thankfully I still contend that the question is really not an issue. Nonetheless, I proposed a "fix." What I would not support is the adoption of power merely due to obstruction. You seem to find many people not worth your time to continue discussion, as that is your favorite line... I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not dodging. I answered your question the relevant way. You want me to admit that Republicans are only obstructing for partisanship's sake. I have no idea and don't speak for the mainstream republican- and I told you that the Tea Party types are not opposing Obama for purely political reasons. Question answered. Are you saying they/you had specific objections to appointing these people? Just curious what were they? He didn't try to go around congress for the fun of it, what are the strong objections to just giving these people up or down votes? I suppose if the position is based on a general obstruction of Obama regardless whether there are any legitimate objections to an appointment (let alone just a vote) and that the constitution protects that obstruction indefinitely that's one thing. It sounds like (based on your solution) that you don't think these tactics should be able to be used indefinitely. How long should appointment votes be able to be delayed leaving positions vacant based on opposition grounded on whatever reasons you would give to these ones? A rough estimate is fine: 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 2 terms?
I wasn't talking about who he appointed, but the manner of their appointment.
I said that, when I was corrected on the pro forma issue, that I liked the ruling more. But he wanted me to give some sort of "solution," so I did right of the top of my head.
We've discussed up or down votes before- that's not a constitutional issue, the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules for these things, so an up or down vote is dependent on senate rules, as I think it should be.
As it stands right now, recesses are relatively short and pro forma sessions are also relatively short, compared to the days of the founders. Therefore, I don't think the issue is in dire need of addressing. The government can and will continue to function in that time. If the senate refuses to consent and the president really wants the position filled, then he should pick a candidate more acceptable to that chamber.
This is kind of a rabbit trail I wasn't interested in, but that's the long and short of it. Of all the things to whine about in terms of "obstruction," appointments is one of the least important ones. (Especially judicial, where the judges have it relatively easy right now in terms of workload).
I'm content if we can agree that the president's actions where unconstitutional and therefore the court made the right decision, even if you disagree with the particulars.
|
On June 27 2014 12:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2014 11:44 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2014 11:36 zlefin wrote:If it's obvious when things are partisan, and you are not for one party, why do you refuse to say "yes, some of the republicans have been engaging in a lot of petty partisan activities"? Given that current republicans frequently go against things that reagan (who they claim to support) was for; holding opinions counter to the actions of past republicans does not count for much. And my concern is not at all useless; and preventing things from happening before they become a problem has obvious value. Since you choose to ignore that; as well as ignoring my legitimate questions and provide non-answers frequently. You also misrepresent the court's position re my concerns; as the court ruled that congress could in fact use continuous proforma sessions to thwart the ability of the president to ever do recess appointments. "The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case: whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding “pro forma” sessions – that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done – every three days. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal government’s argument that the “pro forma” sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the president’s recess appointments powers. In the Court’s view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions." from http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/As such, I find you engage in too much dissembling and dodging to be worth discussing with. And I shall try to refrain from discussing with you further (though I usually have difficulty doing so) Whoops, I misread something when I thought the Court addressed that. You are right. I actually like the ruling more now. Thankfully I still contend that the question is really not an issue. Nonetheless, I proposed a "fix." What I would not support is the adoption of power merely due to obstruction. You seem to find many people not worth your time to continue discussion, as that is your favorite line... I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not dodging. I answered your question the relevant way. You want me to admit that Republicans are only obstructing for partisanship's sake. I have no idea and don't speak for the mainstream republican- and I told you that the Tea Party types are not opposing Obama for purely political reasons. Question answered. Are you saying they/you had specific objections to appointing these people? Just curious what were they? He didn't try to go around congress for the fun of it, what are the strong objections to just giving these people up or down votes? I suppose if the position is based on a general obstruction of Obama regardless whether there are any legitimate objections to an appointment (let alone just a vote) and that the constitution protects that obstruction indefinitely that's one thing. It sounds like (based on your solution) that you don't think these tactics should be able to be used indefinitely. How long should appointment votes be able to be delayed leaving positions vacant based on opposition grounded on whatever reasons you would give to these ones? A rough estimate is fine: 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 2 terms? I wasn't talking about who he appointed, but the manner of their appointment. I said that, when I was corrected on the pro forma issue, that I liked the ruling more. But he wanted me to give some sort of "solution," so I did right of the top of my head. We've discussed up or down votes before- that's not a constitutional issue, the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules for these things, so an up or down vote is dependent on senate rules, as I think it should be. As it stands right now, recesses are relatively short and pro forma sessions are also relatively short, compared to the days of the founders. Therefore, I don't think the issue is in dire need of addressing. The government can and will continue to function in that time. If the senate refuses to consent and the president really wants the position filled, then he should pick a candidate more acceptable to that chamber. This is kind of a rabbit trail I wasn't interested in, but that's the long and short of it. Of all the things to whine about in terms of "obstruction," appointments is one of the least important ones. (Especially judicial, where the judges have it relatively easy right now in terms of workload). I'm content if we can agree that the president's actions where unconstitutional and therefore the court made the right decision, even if you disagree with the particulars.
I guess it's pretty convenient to just ignore the context and why he made the appointments the way he did if you are trying to maintain that the whole ordeal isn't partisan politics.
This wouldn't have even come up if the objections to the appointments were sensible in the first place.
|
On June 27 2014 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2014 12:18 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2014 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 27 2014 11:44 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2014 11:36 zlefin wrote:If it's obvious when things are partisan, and you are not for one party, why do you refuse to say "yes, some of the republicans have been engaging in a lot of petty partisan activities"? Given that current republicans frequently go against things that reagan (who they claim to support) was for; holding opinions counter to the actions of past republicans does not count for much. And my concern is not at all useless; and preventing things from happening before they become a problem has obvious value. Since you choose to ignore that; as well as ignoring my legitimate questions and provide non-answers frequently. You also misrepresent the court's position re my concerns; as the court ruled that congress could in fact use continuous proforma sessions to thwart the ability of the president to ever do recess appointments. "The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case: whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding “pro forma” sessions – that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done – every three days. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal government’s argument that the “pro forma” sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the president’s recess appointments powers. In the Court’s view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions." from http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/As such, I find you engage in too much dissembling and dodging to be worth discussing with. And I shall try to refrain from discussing with you further (though I usually have difficulty doing so) Whoops, I misread something when I thought the Court addressed that. You are right. I actually like the ruling more now. Thankfully I still contend that the question is really not an issue. Nonetheless, I proposed a "fix." What I would not support is the adoption of power merely due to obstruction. You seem to find many people not worth your time to continue discussion, as that is your favorite line... I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not dodging. I answered your question the relevant way. You want me to admit that Republicans are only obstructing for partisanship's sake. I have no idea and don't speak for the mainstream republican- and I told you that the Tea Party types are not opposing Obama for purely political reasons. Question answered. Are you saying they/you had specific objections to appointing these people? Just curious what were they? He didn't try to go around congress for the fun of it, what are the strong objections to just giving these people up or down votes? I suppose if the position is based on a general obstruction of Obama regardless whether there are any legitimate objections to an appointment (let alone just a vote) and that the constitution protects that obstruction indefinitely that's one thing. It sounds like (based on your solution) that you don't think these tactics should be able to be used indefinitely. How long should appointment votes be able to be delayed leaving positions vacant based on opposition grounded on whatever reasons you would give to these ones? A rough estimate is fine: 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 2 terms? I wasn't talking about who he appointed, but the manner of their appointment. I said that, when I was corrected on the pro forma issue, that I liked the ruling more. But he wanted me to give some sort of "solution," so I did right of the top of my head. We've discussed up or down votes before- that's not a constitutional issue, the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules for these things, so an up or down vote is dependent on senate rules, as I think it should be. As it stands right now, recesses are relatively short and pro forma sessions are also relatively short, compared to the days of the founders. Therefore, I don't think the issue is in dire need of addressing. The government can and will continue to function in that time. If the senate refuses to consent and the president really wants the position filled, then he should pick a candidate more acceptable to that chamber. This is kind of a rabbit trail I wasn't interested in, but that's the long and short of it. Of all the things to whine about in terms of "obstruction," appointments is one of the least important ones. (Especially judicial, where the judges have it relatively easy right now in terms of workload). I'm content if we can agree that the president's actions where unconstitutional and therefore the court made the right decision, even if you disagree with the particulars. I guess it's pretty convenient to just ignore the context and why he made the appointments the way he did if you are trying to maintain that the whole ordeal isn't partisan politics. This wouldn't have even come up if the objections to the appointments were sensible in the first place.
As you know, I'm a fan of "the rule of law." This decision helped keep the president from grabbing more power than given to him by the Constitution.
So I'm not ignoring the context- the president does not get to act unilaterally when opposed. End of story. The fate of the entire nation doesn't rely on the NLRB, and the president's action was not taken in defense of the country from some immediate outside threat. Can you tell me why it was imperative for him to make those decisions at that very moment? Does that not seem like a blatant attempt to subvert the advice and consent clause?
For example, in foreign affairs, he has more power. As much as I disliked the Bergdahl swap and the fact that he didn't let Congress know, it was his prerogative and I'm not convinced that the 30 day law was constitutional either.
So I'm not ignoring the context, I'm ignoring the partisanship. If you want the law changed, go through the appropriate channels.
I reject the idea of ends justify the means in a Constitutional Republic. This is the discussion that was going on before I posted on this case... what bad timing.
I'd just like us to agree that the decision was the legally correct one.
I'm not interested in the discussion from earlier right now, pretty bored of it
|
WASHINGTON -- On the one-year anniversary of launching his climate action plan, President Barack Obama derided congressional opponents of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In most communities across the U.S., Obama said, "it's pretty rare that you encounter people who say that carbon pollution is not a problem."
"Except," he said, "in Congress."
"In Congress, folks will tell you climate change is a hoax, or a fad, or a plot. It’s a liberal plot," said Obama. "And then most recently, because many who say that actually know better and they’re just embarrassed, they duck the question. They say, 'Hey, I’m not a scientist,' which really translates into, 'I accept that manmade climate change is real, but if I say so out loud, I will be run out of town by a bunch of fringe elements that thinks climate science is a liberal plot so I’m going to just pretend like, I don’t know, I can't read.'"
"I'm not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I'll say, okay," he continued. "Right? I mean, it's not that hard."
The president made his remarks Wednesday evening at the annual dinner of the League of Conservation Voters in Washington. He spoke a year to the day after he delivered a major address on climate change at Georgetown University, in which he laid out a framework for addressing planet-warming pollution.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration followed up on a key component of that plan, releasing new draft rules for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, which are responsible for 40 percent of total U.S. emissions.
Obama cited recent polls showing strong support for those carbon regulations. He urged supporters to continue the push for climate action, noting that the shift to a lower-carbon economy "is a generational project."
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
