Once again….“President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions.2 As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.”……….http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=’0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A
And did he do this cartoon when BUSH pissed on the Constitution with the PATRIOT Act, his huge, record number of signing statements, and his own appointments? The GOP has squelched Obama’s (and Clinton’s) perfectly reasonable appointments, Obama appoints ONE and this right-wing tool thinks it’s destroying the Constitution. Give me a break.
Does anybody here understands that the ‘appointment’ was made while the CONGRESS WAS NOT IN RECESS . . . .?.I doubt it for there seems to be very little evidence of cognitive dissonance amongst the 0bama adorers.
I always thought we were a nation of laws not men.
The liberals here defend Obama on signing statements and Gitmo et al. Their defense is Bush did it. Somehow they conveniently forget that when Obama ran he made promises. I will close Gitmo in ONE year. He said signing statements are wrong and Bush was wrong to make them. That is called hypocrisy.
The law clearly allows “recess” appointments. Congress is not in recess. I know the blind defenders say that is only semantics but semantics are the entire basis of our legal system. BTW, I have read libertarian legal scholars who say although not in recess another clause covers what he did and it was legal but please don’t try and defend that whatever Obama says, that is the law. Neither he nor Bush are omnipotent..
Yeah, we know Congress isn’t in recess, a couple people show up every few days to create the illusion that they are in secession (they better not be getting paid for it) just to give a massive middle finger to the president (CONservatives would lose their ever lovin mind if Democratic congressmen where that disrespectfull to a republican president). The point the CONs here seem to forget is that somebody HAS to be appointed. The bureau was created legally, and someone has to run it.
Lib1, Obama tried to close Guantanamo but was blocked by fools in congress. Signing statements are generally wrong, but he wasn’t going to get a defense bill without the unconstitutional terms, so he signed a statement saying he wouldn’t break the constitution. I find that reasonable. Bush’s statements saying “I won’t follow this law because I don’t like it” were considerably more troubling.
bho plan on closing gitmo was to bring the terrors to the states so they would be under civilian law and a large number would be release into the general population GREAT
Yeah, it’s a bad idea to name someone to a position Congress created. Better to leave it vacant, right? Especially if it helps consumers (you know, those of us who actually support this country).
wbr doesn’t actually believe in America, so his opinion matters little. All you need to do is check the record of the justice syste, which has smoothly prosecuted many terrrorists and generally imprisoned them for life, and Guantanamo, which has bungled and bungled, but finally got one (and also embarrassed America in front of the whole world, creating anger that has resulted in the deaths of many American troops).
The republicans did something unheard of to try to keep the Senate in session and the president did something unheard of the get around them. The courts will have to settle this, not cartoon posters.
BTW, the Senate has a Democratic majority. Couldn’t Reid have stopped the Republicans tactic. Or is this another case of the rules of the senate preventing any meaningful action?
arodney you should read something out side of your comments for example on 9/11 guy tried in court of the 200+ charges one weak conspericay charge was only one that stuck and it may be over turned accord to a cnn panel the gitmo were never mirandize or other items
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
After W, there’s little left to walk on.
feverjr Premium Member over 12 years ago
Once again….“President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions.2 As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.”……….http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=’0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A
Motivemagus over 12 years ago
And did he do this cartoon when BUSH pissed on the Constitution with the PATRIOT Act, his huge, record number of signing statements, and his own appointments? The GOP has squelched Obama’s (and Clinton’s) perfectly reasonable appointments, Obama appoints ONE and this right-wing tool thinks it’s destroying the Constitution. Give me a break.
petergrt over 12 years ago
Does anybody here understands that the ‘appointment’ was made while the CONGRESS WAS NOT IN RECESS . . . .?.I doubt it for there seems to be very little evidence of cognitive dissonance amongst the 0bama adorers.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
I always thought we were a nation of laws not men.
The liberals here defend Obama on signing statements and Gitmo et al. Their defense is Bush did it. Somehow they conveniently forget that when Obama ran he made promises. I will close Gitmo in ONE year. He said signing statements are wrong and Bush was wrong to make them. That is called hypocrisy.
The law clearly allows “recess” appointments. Congress is not in recess. I know the blind defenders say that is only semantics but semantics are the entire basis of our legal system. BTW, I have read libertarian legal scholars who say although not in recess another clause covers what he did and it was legal but please don’t try and defend that whatever Obama says, that is the law. Neither he nor Bush are omnipotent..
oneoldhat over 12 years ago
good point lib1
Heavy B over 12 years ago
Yeah, we know Congress isn’t in recess, a couple people show up every few days to create the illusion that they are in secession (they better not be getting paid for it) just to give a massive middle finger to the president (CONservatives would lose their ever lovin mind if Democratic congressmen where that disrespectfull to a republican president). The point the CONs here seem to forget is that somebody HAS to be appointed. The bureau was created legally, and someone has to run it.
ARodney over 12 years ago
Lib1, Obama tried to close Guantanamo but was blocked by fools in congress. Signing statements are generally wrong, but he wasn’t going to get a defense bill without the unconstitutional terms, so he signed a statement saying he wouldn’t break the constitution. I find that reasonable. Bush’s statements saying “I won’t follow this law because I don’t like it” were considerably more troubling.
oneoldhat over 12 years ago
bho plan on closing gitmo was to bring the terrors to the states so they would be under civilian law and a large number would be release into the general population GREAT
Kvasir42 Premium Member over 12 years ago
Yeah, it’s a bad idea to name someone to a position Congress created. Better to leave it vacant, right? Especially if it helps consumers (you know, those of us who actually support this country).
ARodney over 12 years ago
wbr doesn’t actually believe in America, so his opinion matters little. All you need to do is check the record of the justice syste, which has smoothly prosecuted many terrrorists and generally imprisoned them for life, and Guantanamo, which has bungled and bungled, but finally got one (and also embarrassed America in front of the whole world, creating anger that has resulted in the deaths of many American troops).
NEVADAMIKE over 12 years ago
Arer you really that $%#&* dumb
pdchapin over 12 years ago
The republicans did something unheard of to try to keep the Senate in session and the president did something unheard of the get around them. The courts will have to settle this, not cartoon posters.
BTW, the Senate has a Democratic majority. Couldn’t Reid have stopped the Republicans tactic. Or is this another case of the rules of the senate preventing any meaningful action?
oneoldhat over 12 years ago
arodney you should read something out side of your comments for example on 9/11 guy tried in court of the 200+ charges one weak conspericay charge was only one that stuck and it may be over turned accord to a cnn panel the gitmo were never mirandize or other items