Skip to main content

View Diary: How Many Recess Appointments Have Other Presidents Made Again? (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ned - I think you missed the fundamental (14+ / 0-)

    elements of this 9-0 ruling. The Senate was in "pro-forma" session when President Obama made the appointments. The Constitution empowers the Congress to make its own rules, including when it is in session. Historically other Presidents, including GWB, respected the Senate's "pro forma" sessions as valid and didn't try to make appointments during those times.

    How often other Presidents made recess appointments, or how often appointments were filibustered or blocked in some manner, wasn't part of how all nine Justices looked at this case.

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:55:40 PM PDT

    •  You say it so clearly VClib. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Victor Ward
    •  A little too far: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett, VClib, kurt
      How often other Presidents made recess appointments, or how often appointments were filibustered or blocked in some manner, wasn't part of how all nine Justices looked at this case.
      I get what you're saying, but you're taking it too far: these issues are prominent both in the decision and in Scalia's concurrence. Breyer's opinion includes two appendices listing recess appointments and their circumstances.  The total agreement over pro forma sessions is why the result was (technically) unanimous, and as you said has nothing to do with other recess appointments, but how often Presidents made inter- or intra- recess appointments and why was the sticking point between the 5-4 aspect of the decision.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 02:42:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I know what the ruling says. I strongly disagree (0+ / 0-)

      with it. You have individuals in the Republican Congress making a show of conducting business without even a quorum.

      They go in an turn on the lights knowing full well they are out on vacation. With this Congress they are on vacation even while they are in session.

      I disagree with this....

    •  The fundamental element of this 9-0 ruling is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NXNW

      that only someone as epistemologically challenged as a Supreme Court Justice could possibly believe that the recess appointment power could be thwarted by the Senate inventing a bogus kind of "being in session".

      This is how sensible, intelligent people would have ruled on this case:

      A. The purpose of the recess appointment power is to permit the President to make appointments at times when the Senate is not conducting business in a fashion so as to make timely Senate consideration possible.

      B. The language of the clause in the Constitution was written by men who would have understood "in session" to mean actually, functionally in session, rather than some bogus legalistic "pro forma" non-session. Standing at the podium and declaring the Senate to be "in session" when there is no business being conducted, when there is no intention of conducting business, and indeed when a quorum is not even physically present in the District of Columbia, is an obvious fraud, and need not be tolerated by the people, in whose interest this Court operates. Congress may have the authority to make its own rules as far as when it is or is not in session, but Congress does not have the authority to redefine the words in the English language so as to accommodate their non-feasance.

      C. Therefore, using our judgment, rather than allowing ourselves to be constrained by the Senators' obvious abuse of language, we declare that the pro-forma sessions absurdly invoked by the Senate are not sessions as referenced in the relevant clauses of the Constitution, and therefore, the President's appointments are legal and valid.

      Sadly, every single one of those justices is fucking blinded by the lunatic conventions of thought, knowledge and reason that dominate jurisprudence, and thus every single one of them, in absolutely non-partisan fashion, just sided with idiocy over humanism.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:43:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  UR - two thoughts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, MGross

        Who gets to decide the rules of Congress, the members of Congress or the President? The Constitution seems clear on this point as all nine Justices confirmed.

        The Senate was going to be away for three days. How does that preclude the Senate dealing with an issue in a "timely fashion"?

        The recess appointment power was never intended to be an end run around the Senate.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:01:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You aren't fucking getting it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NXNW

          The Congress doesn't get to redefine "session" and "in-session" to mean any goddamned thing they like -- if so, then the recess appointment has no meaning at all, since Congress could simply be "in session" all the time, without anybody even being there.

          This isn't about Congress making its own rules, this is about Congress making its own language, and then layering that unique language over the one used to write the Constitution.

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:07:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it's about Congress making it's own rules (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            The Congress does actually get to define in session, that's the point. There are three candidates who can define when Congress is in session and under the doctrine of separation of powers the Courts have made it clear that Congress decides.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:23:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, they don't. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NXNW

              "In session" means something.

              It meant something when it was written.

              Congress gets to decide when it will be in session.

              Congress does not get to redefine the meaning of "in session", any more than Congress gets to redefine the meaning of any of the other words in the Constitution. "Yes, of course, it says we shall make no law regarding establishment of religion, but what we are doing is not establishing the Southern Baptist Church, because 'establish' means 'say something bad about', and to the contrary this bill exalts the Southern Baptist Church, and requires every citizen to pay a tithe thereto."

              The people who wrote the Constitution obviously didn't think they needed to carefully define "in session", because they knew what it meant, and they assumed everybody else knew what it meant, and they assumed it would never be a matter of dispute or debate. Today's decision completely nullifies the recess appointment power, because any Congress at any time can now redefine "in session" to mean anything at all. Whether deliberately or not, the justices have removed any requirement of reasonability from the exercise of this inane authority. The decision is devoid of philosophical awareness, and is the broken product of small, undereducated, unwise minds.

              In this, as in so many ways, we have disappointed their expectations.

              To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

              by UntimelyRippd on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 06:03:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site