In response to:

Court to Obama Admin: Actually, Those Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional

Wallac Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:11 PM
All you see is "Obama" "unconstitutional", I will wager not one of you can tell me the legal question in this case. Because if you do you will realize, it's merely a technically the GOP used with the sole intent on denying Presidential powers to this President. All this was done when their objective was to make this a one term President. The GOP acted unethical, and purposely malicious, attempting to create ambiguity for this very reason. The Supreme Court must decide on those very lines of arguments, then you can rejoice, or suffer another lost from the High Court. Whatever the case it's not that serious, and definitely not impeachable.
Curtis108 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:37 PM
Wallac, as this "technicality" was invented and used by the Democrats during the Bush Administration, I personally find it amusing that now they have a problem with it.
scrow Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:32 PM
The Supreme Court _can't_ decide on those very lines of arguments without violating separation of powers.

Setting aside the fact that all opposition party members try to make sure a President is a one-term President (when was the last time they tried to help an opposition President get a second term?), I imagine they also had the intent of block dissatisfactory candidates for the board.
Whitebeard Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:59 PM
scrow: How dare you bring sanity into the debate?
rauljg69 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:26 PM
Duh...most people can figure that out...oh but we're here in TH. They need extra explanation.
SwimwareIsMe Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:30 PM
Raul, you are quickly running out of grace, and are moving closer to returning to crackwhore status.
brimley Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:32 PM
Manure from different animals has different qualities and requires different application rates when used as fertilizer. For example horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, rabbits, humans (sewage), and guano from seabirds and bats all have different properties.[1]
brimley Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:24 PM
Good Gravy!

Another drooling idot tring to twist simple realty into something it's not
SwimwareIsMe Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:21 PM
The constitutional question is whether a president can make a recess appointment when the Senate is NOT IN RECESS.

Next
Wallac Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:55 PM
How is "Recess" defined?
Can "Recess" be manipulated for the sole purpose to deny presidential powers?
Do we see Malicious intent?
Was the tactic used to serve a GOP agenda, to make this president one term, at any cost to country?

"Intent and willfulness" are very important in this case.

I don't have a dog in this fight, my only interest is the legal aspects, it's always interesting to witness a challenge between the balance of power.

I was hoping I could get a response from someone who's a little more level headed, and not merely elated because of slap on wrist to the newly elected President.---in the end that's the worst that could happen. This not an Iran Contra, or Watergate, no Senate hearing, or Special prosecutor will.
Resist, We Much!!! Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 2:17 PM
Read the f*cking Constitution, you colossal idiot.
deprogramming services Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 1:21 PM
The traitor Obama should be resisted by loyal Americans in Congress by any means available to them, in order to limit the damage he does. Whether or not this particular strategy is worthwhile remains to be seen, though it can be argued that every minute the Obama team is dealing with something like this those traitors are not actively levying war on the Republic.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals today unanimously slapped down the controversial “recess” appointments President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board way back in early January of 2012, in what the Associated Press rightly calls an “embarrassing setback.” Indeed, if the Supreme Court upholds the decision, it very well may nullify everything the board has done since the appointments, as it won’t have actually had the quorum of three members required to issue regulations. Ouch.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking...