Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (695697)	1/27/2013 4:11:33 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578705

Yeah, he did say he was going to minimize them. But that was when he thought the Republicans were interested in governing in a rational fashion. He has expressed his frustration with the pro forma sessions before. So it isn't like it was new. Actually, pro forma sessions are not in the Constitution. An argument can be made that a session that isn't going to do anything but block action is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Like the filibuster, it is a mechanism adopted by the Senate to give the minority party a voice. Both were intended to be rare things, not the general order of business. The Republicans have been abusing the rules. Like on the filibuster. Remember how enraged the Republicans were over the way the Democrats were using it? Yet they filibustered only a small number of times that the Republicans have in any given term. How do they suppress the military vote? The voter ID objections were because it was right before a major election and there was no time to work out the inevitable kinks.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (695697)	1/27/2013 5:02:13 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 1578705

Obama is the one that said they should not/rarely be used - yet he uses them nearly as much as Bush and in his 2nd term I expect he will use them even more. Obama is a hypocrite but you will not recognize that flaw in your god. By essentially (Obama) declaring that the Senate was in "recess" when they specifically were not and then making recess appointments........Obama effectively removes the "advise and consent clause" from the constitution. Had it not been challenged, Obama could at any time (weekends, etc) declare that the Senate is in recess and make ANY appointment he wants. He thought he could get away with it with these 3 NLRB appointments and this Cordray character. My understanding is that the 3 NLRB appointees were not even brought up before the Senate previously and shot down as Cordray had been . Obama simply declared the Senate in recess and appointed them. So now, if they appeal and it goes to the Supreme Court, we will get a definitive ruling when a recess appointment can be made. Sounds like a recess appointment can only be made if the vacancy occurs within a declared recess and then such appointment only is valid until the next session begins. I could envision even that abused.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (695697)	1/27/2013 6:21:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578705

Another deflection - trying to turn his mistakes into his super secret plan from the beginning. Obama was a Con Law professor. You don't think he understands how the constitution and the federal gov't works. Seriously? The only time the Rs have been able to outsmart Obama is when he's played it straight with them. Even then, he didn't come away empty handed.......the whole country understands now how Rs operate. Its why they are the most unpopular group in DC.