Only if you think that judicial decisions should not be based on law, but on who’s being a dick.
I’m not sure that they even have to do that. Can’t they simply refuse to rule on it?
Didn’t negotiate on what? The contents of a bill that’s already been passed? That’s not the way it works. They already lost that battle legislatively. They lost the vote. That’s the way the system works.
At this point in the process, any negotiations are about are about the choice of nominee. NOTHING ELSE. You don’t get to change the freaking rules because you lost the damned vote. In what world does that make any sense?
And you certainly don’t get to ask to negotiate on things that are no longer negotiable and then run around accusing your opponent of being unwilling to negotiate! :smack:
How freaking hard is that to understand! Damn!
Where are you getting this? Did anyone suggest that the President can re-write legislation? By compromise people mean working with both parties in Congress to get agreed-upon legislation passed. This happens all the time and has nothing to do with a re-write of a law.
Who the hell is your role model-Monty Python’s Black Knight??
Well, there are already competing philosophies of legal interpretation like Strict Constructionism, Textualism, Original Intent and Living Constitution. I’m prepared to tolerate one of Dick-Slapping.
What are you talking about? If you wish to answer the question then feel free. Did anyone suggest that the President can rewrite a law?
What’s wrong with a singer person dominating the Bureau? That’s how Bureaus typically operate.
How?
I’ll have to admit, I haven’t studied the law creating the agency, but is the agency not funded by congress? I thought Congress funded all federal agencies (or can chose to withhold money). So if Congress isn’t funding the agency, who is? And if it is Congress then I see nothing wrong with them demanding oversight.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Can someone translate this to English please?
Well, the people responsible for confirming the appointment are demanding that the actual terms of the agency, as passed by the legislature, be changed in order to allow the confirmation.magellan01 is suggesting that the reason that the confirmation is not happening is because Obama is being unreasonable and not “negotiating” the terms of the change to the already passed legislation in order for the confirmation to occur. So yes, by that, it sure seems like the people holding up the confirmation until the agency itself is changed substantially from the original already passed legislation are under the impression that is a reasonable position to take, and somehow blaming Obama for not renegotiating the terms of already passed legislation.
It’s just another way to gum up the approval process, while making it sound like it’s a matter of fairness. “Hey, if the regulators are going to check the financial institutions for safety and soundness, then it’s only fair if the regulators themselves are also checked for safety and soundness. Turnabout is fair play, after all!”:dubious: And they throw in the bit about making sure thjat the regulators aren’t causing bank failures so as to imply that regulations cause bank failures.
They’re setting up a false equivalence: Regulators are just as likely as financial institutions to be unsafe and unsound, and regulations are just as likely as financial institutions to cause bank failures. See how it works? It’s all bull of course.
Its typical Republican speak, and your’e right, it makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it. The problem is the people who don’t bother to think about it.
Zeriel seems to be suggesting that that magellan01 thinks the President can just re-write the law…as in, Obama re-writes the law the way he wants and it doesn’t have to be passed by Congress again. Nobody suggested that so I wasn’t sure what the hell Zeriel was so worked up about.
Well the obvious answer is that no, he can’t unilaterally negotiate for changes in the existing law, but that doesn’t prevent magellan01 from being pissed and laying the blame on Obama instead of on the people who originally passed the law they’re now trying to hard to make sure isn’t enforced. Despite the fact that it’s already been passed.
ETA: Actually, a better answer is that magellan01 doesn’t know if he can negotiate for the changes the Republicans are demanding, but he wants him to anyway, thinking it’s just a matter of the “dems in congres agreeing” to the negotiated terms :rolleyes:
Yeah, it seems to me to be an attitude of regulations being the problem, when it was lack of regulations that helped lead to the meltdown in the first place.
Well, the market would have fixed itself! but Obama wouldn’t give it a chance!
No personal comments in Great Debates, please.
O.K.
The. Legislation. Has. Already. Been. Passed.
No do-overs.
Here is the exact text I found. Point us to more if you think it changes anything, but it seems that the Constitution clearly states that the President is allowed to make recess appointments and Congress has until the end of the next session to approve it. From what I can tell, the interpretation by courts is also quite settled.
Have a recess appointee’s actions ever been reversed because the appointment was later rejected? Why would this case be any different than previous recess appointments?
Wrong section. Look in section 1066
[/QUOTE]
How does that change anything? It just reinforces the text I posted. If the recess appointment meets the requirements of 1011 then 1066 does nothing to change that. It simply allows an interim Director until the requirements of 1011 are met, and it seems that the Constitution and precedents are on the side of the recess appointment.
Someone else please tell me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t see much chance that anyone would get this to court and even less chance a court would rule that the recent appointee’s actions be reversed.