Oh, you poor dear. And yet you bravely soldier on!
“Though I’ve belted you and flayed you
By the living Og that made you
You’re a stubborn little bugger, Bricker Din!”
- Junkyard Kipling
I’d change “incompetence” to “milquetoastiness” or something similar, because I’m sure it’s a case of being sissies rather than idiots.
That said, Metallica’s “Sad But True” is the theme song of your post–it’s the curse of being a modern progressive that the Democrats can’t, as a party, find their ass with both hands, a flashlight, and a map (and a fig leaf of bi-partisan support)
Your concern is touching.
You mean 1992 or so, if you look at the trendlines. It doubled that year, then hovered in the same general area until 2008 when it doubled again. Fancy that.
Zeriel, your disappointment is misplaced, the Democratic Party is not a progressive party, by any stretch, its simply more progressive compared to the Reactionary Party. Tomato, tomahto, maybe, but ever since the Clintonistas, the leadership has been firmly committed to Republican Lite. They were hoping a “business friendly” Party could suck up more profitably to corporate interests. Democrat/Republican, Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. Maybe Romulus and Rebus, except its not a she-wolf, but a pig.
But a bright note? Republicans attacking the Mittster for being a corporado, shipping jobs overseas, that sort of thing. Sincerest flattery, and all that. I’m sure the OWS had no notion of boosting the Santorum campaign, or Newt Gangrene, but that’s how American politics, ah, works.
But the Obama administration had already opined that congress can be considered in recess when they do not convene for three days. They didn’t wait the for three days to pass.
So they changed their mind. Certainly that is within the powers of the President.
We agree on the definition. Again, I use it more for things like the powers of an office rather than the office itself. I think that’s how it’s most commonly used. It absolutely can be used to refer to the actual office, hence my use of the word “more” which you evidently decided to read over.
Sigh.
Yes. But it is very bad form, as there was an understanding between the two branches of government. They were in agreement. Then Obama just changed the rules mid stream. Correction: he just ignored them.
The public also doesn’t like it when someone changes rules in the middle of the game. I’m happy to wait and see which one of us is right next November.
You can assume anything you’d like. Try rereading my responses for starters.
That is certainly a valid opinion. But the question wasn’t if it was “fair play” or “bad form”. The question was whether it was a Constitutional use of Presidential power. I think it is.
And here you have hit on the proper remedy.
Personally, I don’t think the public gives a shit about this issues - either because they don’t understand it or they treat it like yet another political game. And if the GOP wants to make a stink about it, I don’t think the optics of Mitt Romney attacking Barack Obama for appointing someone to look out for consumer interests against Wall Street greed is a particularly winning political position…
But we shall see.
My bet? Nary a peep from the GOP about Cordray and maybe a moderate stink about the NLRB appointments - they might have more success attacking Unions than protecting Wall Street against consumer anger.
And finally, regarding “usurpation”, what power of Congress did Obama take? It seems to me that pro-forma perpetual sessions are in fact a usurpation of the president’s recess appointment power. Congress still has their advise and consent power - they could have voted up or down on Cordray at any time.
Yeah, but in the 90’s there was still more cooperation than there is now. Hell, the 104th congress, with Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, gave President Clinton, a Democrat, line-item-veto. A Democrat. They didn’t try to wait until a Republican was elected President.
When the Republicans sent welfare reform to Clinton he said no, so they modified it and sent it back and he eventually signed it. In short, government was running like it was supposed to.
I’m sorry for getting off track. To get back on track, one the one had it troubles me that some think that the Senate in recess whenever Obama decides it is. On the other hand, I see no problem with Obama seeing what the Senate was doing and declaring that it really wasn’t in session, because if all they were doing was gaveling in and out then it seems pretty obvious that they weren’t really in session and were just going through the motions.
Wait, are you expanding the definition of a word? Or, do I have you confused with another poster? Perhaps this new definition can be the marriage of other definitions.
So how much “business” is enough? What if a Senator opens the session, declares with unanimous consent that the sense of the Senate is that November is national SDMB month, immediately repeals the resolution, and then adjourns. Enough?
I don’t know what Bricker would consider the bare minimum, but for me I’m not comfortable with the court deciding what this line is beyond the obvious outliers (no business at all, or full business including a voting quorum present). In between I think the definition of “recess” is up to the executive since it is an executive power and if the public disagrees with the executive then it punishes at the ballot box.
<mumbles>
<shakes head>
Uh-huh. Too much time at the quarry. We warned you.
First of all, a session of Congress is not the time between recesses but the entire year between the first opening and adjournment sine die. So your question really is what does Congress need to do for it not to be a recess. The answer is to open and note that a quorum is not present.
Under Robert’s Rules (which most legislative bodies do NOT use) it is up to the discretion of the chair whether or not to wait for a quorum. No motion is necessary to adjourn if no further business comes before the body and under RONR, a body cannot conduct any business (except if they allow a Call of the House and that is rare in bodies that use RONR). The entire meeting would be something like
Chair: All present will be in order. A quorum not being present, the body will be adjourned until <insert date here>.
If the Democrats wanted to play hardball, then as soon as they Senate is called to order, a Democrat would move for a quorum call. A quorum not being present, a Democrat would move for a Call of the House which would compel all of the Senators to go back to Washington D.C. under threat of arrest. The only motion that can be entertained during a Call of the House is for adjournment or cancelling the Call. This is the only work that can be done is there is not a quorum which I assume is happening with the pro forma sessions.
Another tactic would be for the Dems to adjourn the Senate sine die and officially notify the House requesting their permission. Of course the Pubbies say no. Reid then officially sends an official request to President Obama (with a copy to the House) to exercise his Constitutional authority under II,2,3. I don’t know that the President can adjourn them sine die effectively closing the session because it specifically says
and so one would think he needs to give them a day to return. The point is moot in this case since as soon as Obama adjourns the Senate, he makes his recess appointments and then The House has no reason to hold the Senate any longer. Reid comes back on the day chosen by Obama, closes up shop for the Session and bangs his gavel.
The problem is that Harry Reid used pro forma sessions to block Bush’s recess appointments so the Dems are hard-pressed to condemn the Pubs for a similar tactic as long as Reid is the majority leader.
If they were not in recess, why did Reid and Boehenr ask Obama to call back later when he asked about a debt ceiling increase . Also I see this item today:
Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.) and 71 other House Republicans introduced a nonbinding resolution today voicing concern over President Barack Obama’s recess appointment of four administration nominees last week.
“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” Black said. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”
Really?