I'm fairly certain that when a bill passes saying that such and such agency is to be created, and then the Senate blocks the person who would run such agency because they are opposed to the existence of the agency, not even the person who would run it, that's a fairly broken system. They're trying to keep the law of the land from being enacted.
Is the senate broken or is it working as it was designed?
I think it's more like a shopping cart with a wheel missing - if you push it along and press on it in the right way, it works, It kinda wobbles along a bit, but holds all your shopping just fine. But if you stop paying attention or push it wrong, it all grinds to a halt.
Is the senate broken or is it working as it was designed?
I think it's more like a shopping cart with a wheel missing - if you push it along and press on it in the right way, it works, It kinda wobbles along a bit, but holds all your shopping just fine. But if you stop paying attention or push it wrong, it all grinds to a halt.
I like that analogy a lot. Even when it works, it makes a horrible sound and people around you (using different shopping carts) are annoyed.
Don't forget, it was Harry Reid who thought up this pro forma crap in the first place. Democrats used (and applauded its use) this tactic to stop Bush. Even Senator Obama said it was a good thing.
I really don't remember the democrats actually refusing to appoint someone they would vote for just because they were butt hurt that the agency was created in the first place.
Just because someone says something is good does not make it so. And even if they abhor the same tactic they used that doesn't make them wrong, or evil, only human.
No, the consumer protection guy being blocked was bullshit. He should have gotten, and democrats should have demanded an up or down vote on him. The triple NRLB recess appointment is what scares me.
No, the consumer protection guy being blocked was bullshit. He should have gotten, and democrats should have demanded an up or down vote on him. The triple NRLB recess appointment is what scares me.
Everything I read on the NRLB appointments was that without those appointments the board would stop functioning (wouldn't have had a quorum) This is of course exactly what the republicans would have wanted and the board would have been non-functional for a very long time.
No, the consumer protection guy being blocked was bullshit. He should have gotten, and democrats should have demanded an up or down vote on him. The triple NRLB recess appointment is what scares me.
Everything I read on the NRLB appointments was that without those appointments the board would stop functioning (wouldn't have had a quorum) This is of course exactly what the republicans would have wanted and the board would have been non-functional for a very long time.
If you have one, could I get a link to a decent source article about this?
I really don't understand why we give a fuck what congress thinks in this current climate. They've proven time and time and time and time again that they don't deserve our respect as thoughtful citizens, because the only thing they seem to be thoughtful of is keeping their jobs. I've yet to be convinced that any of them really deserve to have anyone defending them. So the President pushed through a few nominations to keep the government running? Let us know when he does it again without Congress threatening to put a stop to everything he does, and I'll share your concern.
I really don't remember the democrats actually refusing to appoint someone they would vote for just because they were butt hurt that the agency was created in the first place.
I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I remember reading from a lot of different news sources about Bush's appointees being held up over unrelated political battles, and that this was extremely rare. Prior, both parties were adults about it. Now, they both engage in the practice, and I think it's bullshit.
I really don't remember the democrats actually refusing to appoint someone they would vote for just because they were butt hurt that the agency was created in the first place.
I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I remember reading from a lot of different news sources about Bush's appointees being held up over unrelated political battles, and that this was extremely rare. Prior, both parties were adults about it. Now, they both engage in the practice, and I think it's bullshit.
Judges are one thing, usually there is a bunch of them in each circuit so having one or two gone is not so bad. but Heads of agencies are another, they can't function without the head. Especially one that was just created, since there would be no institution momentum yet.
Didn't Treasury have authority over the consumer office until the senate confirms the president's nominee? Doesn't the law specifically require senate approval before the new head gains any power?
A friend just pointed something out. Obama waited until the new session started to make these recess appointments. If the new session just started how can they be in recess already?
A friend just pointed something out. Obama waited until the new session started to make these recess appointments. If the new session just started how can they be in recess already?
Because Senate and Congress were content to dick around for weeks already, intentionally trying to delay anything. I have a feeling that they will continue to delay as much as possible until the next election, and probably well past it.
Thomas E. Mann Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings :
The president's "recess" appointments were controversial but sound, both legally and politically.
On the first point, the recent use of "pro forma" sessions to deny the president an opportunity to exercise his constitutional authority to make recess appointments, a practice followed by both parties, is worthy of a presidential challenge. More importantly, the insistence of Senate Republicans that they have a right to deny a vote on any presidential appointee if they do not like the structure of the agency embedded in the law, is a form of modern-day nullification that should be resisted strongly with whatever tools are available to the president.
On the second, the Republican strategy of hostage-taking and nullification is not popular with the public; the president will gain politically from his aggressive move.
I'm always amazed about the fact that those who scream the loudest about the impending threat of Sharia law taking over the U.S. are those most likely to turn the U.S. into Iran.
I'm always amazed about the fact that those who scream the loudest about the impending threat of Sharia law taking over the U.S. are those most likely to turn the U.S. into Iranthe Vatican West.
I'm always amazed about the fact that those who scream the loudest about the impending threat of Sharia law taking over the U.S. are those most likely to turn the U.S. into Iranthe Vatican West.
Hardly. The Catholic Church doesn't take issue with natural selection or Charles Darwin, unlike some of these mongrels. Nor do they take issue with stem cell research on adult stems and IPS, unlike Mr. Santorum.
God, the whole stem cell thing really pissed me off. Stem cells are the only thing that can fix my partial blindness, so the thought that people want to stop that research makes me incredibly angry.
God, the whole stem cell thing really pissed me off. Stem cells are the only thing that can fix my partial blindness, so the thought that people want to stop that research makes me incredibly angry.
It also doesn't make any sense from an ethical standpoint. I can understand if you think that embryonic stems are bad because they destroy a potential life, or because you believe that life begins at conception. I may have a number of qualms about both of those points, but a person has a right to their opinion. Now, that being said, we're making a ton of progress with induced pluripotent stems and other adult stem cells, which come from living adults and do not destroy an embryo or anything else. In fact, last I discussed this with a researcher, she said IPS and adult stems were looking more promising than their controversial embryonic counterparts. There is absolutely no moral or ethical issue with using the stems of a consenting adult who freely donates them, but Rick Santorum can't read anything regarding science long enough to understand that sometimes (actually, I'd wager most of the time) science does something that doesn't contradict any of his beliefs.
Speaking of lobbyists, one of Romney's senior advisors is a lobbyist. He claims that lobbyists do not run his campaign. When an AP reporter point this out as a blatant lie, Mitt lost his shit.
Comments
The president's "recess" appointments were controversial but sound, both legally and politically.
On the first point, the recent use of "pro forma" sessions to deny the president an opportunity to exercise his constitutional authority to make recess appointments, a practice followed by both parties, is worthy of a presidential challenge. More importantly, the insistence of Senate Republicans that they have a right to deny a vote on any presidential appointee if they do not like the structure of the agency embedded in the law, is a form of modern-day nullification that should be resisted strongly with whatever tools are available to the president.
On the second, the Republican strategy of hostage-taking and nullification is not popular with the public; the president will gain politically from his aggressive move.