Latest Breaking News

MADem

(135,425 posts)

30. Very good summation, onenote.

Reply to onenote (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:35 PM

Jan 2013

I agree with your sense that it's a crapshoot as to how SCOTUS will rule.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional [View all] jsr Jan 2013 OP

3...2...1....impeachment papers being filed? democrat_patriot Jan 2013 #1

It's only a matter of time. malthaussen Jan 2013 #6

I'll take the bet. Double or nothing? onenote Jan 2013 #7

Okay by me. malthaussen Jan 2013 #11

Oh, I don't doubt that some whackjob may introduce an impeachment resolution onenote Jan 2013 #25

Yes, that is surprising about Mr Obama malthaussen Jan 2013 #31

And even if there is an impeachment it won't be one followed by a conviction PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #35

no, but it mars up and distracts an entire term, like clinton and monica, for nothing. SugarShack Jan 2013 #46

I think a silly impeachment would likely cost Republicans in the following elections. n/t PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #48

Did the introduction of impeachment resolutions against LBJ, Bush I, Bush II, Truman, and Hooer onenote Jan 2013 #61

The House can impeach for any reason or no reason at all. If they have the votes to do it, they will kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #51

They had more votes during the President's first term and didn't do it. onenote Jan 2013 #59

"Dollars to doughnuts" William Seger Jan 2013 #54

Me too. I think the Repubs remember how impeaching Clinton turned out for them. (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #57

it'll be another colossal waste of taxpayer money SemperEadem Jan 2013 #21

Bingo!!!!!!!!! SoapBox Jan 2013 #41

if repugs do that, prepare for a huge backlash wordpix Jan 2013 #82

What now? lsewpershad Jan 2013 #2

Next stop, USSC. Robb Jan 2013 #4

Yes. I think that was the point all along. To get an definitive ruling on the shitty tactic of Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #34

How you, I, or anyone on the court feels about it is not relevant. What matters is what was meant 24601 Jan 2013 #73

So, were all those GW Bush recess appointments illegal as well? Does that mean John Bolton sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #3

I don't believe the Senate was doing 'pro forma' sessions to prevent the Bolton appointment PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #12

Actually, this decision is so broad it would invalidate the Bolton appointment onenote Jan 2013 #18

Yes I see it ruled not on the validity of the 'pro forma' sessions, but on the meaning of 'Recess' PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #33

It could mean that ALL of his recess appointments in 2012 session were illegal. dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #78

This one is going to the Supreme Court onenote Jan 2013 #17

Indeed--this is a good analysis. This decision is sweeping. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #22

Very good summation, onenote. MADem Jan 2013 #30

Thanks. Of course, the facts won't stop some RW idiots from claiming Obama did something heinous onenote Jan 2013 #40

Indeed...it gets frustrating! nt MADem Jan 2013 #43

Go check any comment thread on any news site about this... they are out in full force budkin Jan 2013 #47

Why would other circuits have ruled on this issue? former9thward Jan 2013 #64

The 11th Circuit ruled on the recess appointment of Pryor to the 11th Circuit onenote Jan 2013 #65

Thank you. former9thward Jan 2013 #66

So it also means ALL NLRB actions in 2012 are in question dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #79

And given the 5-4 conservative majority . . . markpkessinger Jan 2013 #74

Unclear onenote Jan 2013 #77

It was inevitable the courts would be deciding this... PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #5

What was the makeup of the court? It seems ever decision is decided by party affiliation. olegramps Jan 2013 #8

Well I answered my own question: 6 Republican and 3 Democratic appointments; 2 vacancies. olegramps Jan 2013 #15

For this decision: one Reagan nominee, one Bush I and one Bush II. onenote Jan 2013 #42

Well, well, well. 3 of 3 Republican appointees who didn't like a Dem's appointments spooky3 Jan 2013 #63

Too "pro-union"? JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #9

Wrong. Hard Assets Jan 2013 #10

good luck with that bunch madrchsod Jan 2013 #28

Fat Tony and Uncle Tom is due to expire soon. Hard Assets Jan 2013 #36

Unless he dies, quits, or is impeached, he will remain Chief Justice. n/t PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #53

Roberts has health issues Hard Assets Jan 2013 #60

that`s true.... madrchsod Jan 2013 #55

Is the Senate required to... ReRe Jan 2013 #13

Other presidents have been doing it for years. appleannie1 Jan 2013 #14

Hopefully tweeking the Senate filibuster rules will help on this front 99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #16

Naa, he's too busy hugging McTurtle in victory over the filibuster. RC Jan 2013 #20

What they are doing to the filibuster is a defeat for both parties mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #44

Shit. This is bad. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #19

Not necessarily. Not the last word on this. yellowcanine Jan 2013 #39

well there goes what is left of any protection for unions madrchsod Jan 2013 #23

There are 4 openings on the DC Circuit - President Obama needs to fill these Hawaii Hiker Jan 2013 #24

So was it unconstitutional for bu$h to make recess appointments? liberal N proud Jan 2013 #26

some, if not most of them, probably. onenote Jan 2013 #37

Full text of the decision (.pdf) PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #27

Thanks. An interesting read, and I think a pretty convincing argument (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #58

This I put on Ried's head too. EC Jan 2013 #29

It wouldn't have mattered under this decision onenote Jan 2013 #32

I'm not sure this ruling will hold EC Jan 2013 #38

The Senate needs permission to recess. Igel Jan 2013 #81

Not good. Can this be appealed? budkin Jan 2013 #45

Yes Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #49

Good to hear. budkin Jan 2013 #56

It will likely end up with Supreme Court taking up the case as different circuits PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #50

Too late now, but this is another argument for filibuster reform Politicub Jan 2013 #52

Ever heard of winning all the battles but losing the war? nolabels Jan 2013 #62

And so are those of any appointees before him judesedit Jan 2013 #67

Not sure I follow. Can you explain what you mean? onenote Jan 2013 #70

Let's get a different Federal Court . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #68

This case doesn't hinge on the validity of pro forma senate sessions. onenote Jan 2013 #69

Thanks for the clarification . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #71

Its a very confusing situation. No one foresaw this result. onenote Jan 2013 #72

The only federal court with justices is the Supreme Court. Federal district and circuit courts 24601 Jan 2013 #75

Thanks for the correction. another_liberal Jan 2013 #76

Anyone remember when Bush signed the bill that didn't pass the House? NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #80

I don't think it'll stand. Igel Jan 2013 #83