Justice Antonin Scalia found dead

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Actually ' eolesen ' is right.  An  Asian Male would be PERFECT appointment by BO, then let the  D-B  replugs attack the guy relentlessly.  Wonder how many  asian votes that could change to  ' D ' votes  ??
 
Hey Eric.
 
My only REAL beef with (uncle) Clarence is that he beat the Anita Hill  'Rap' !
 
PS,
Imagine if  " I "  had used the N - word  like YOU  DID !  YOU/southwind/pete and citRAT would be screaming for the moderators  !!
 
Hypocrits  !!!!!!!!!!1

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Recess appointments were upheld by the SCOTUS. Basically, The question was whether pro-forma sessions were actually recess or not. They ruled that they were.

So in essence, any majority party that is willing to stay in session at all times can block appointments. That has its perils.

If you read the actual ruling, they affirmed the Presidential power of recess appointments.

"The Court began with the first question presented in the case: whether the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments during intra-session recesses (breaks that occur within the two one-year sessions between congressional elections) or only during inter-session recess (the break between the two one-year sessions). Its answer on this question is a victory for the Obama administration and future presidents who want to be able to make recess appointments. Again relying heavily on a long tradition of recess appointments, it concluded that the constitutionality of a recess appointment does not hinge on whether it is made during an intra- or inter-session recess. After all, the Court noted, if the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause is to ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away, it doesnt really matter what you call the recess. If the Senate isnt there, it isnt there."

"But theres a catch one that narrows the scope of the ruling. Even if it doesnt matter whether the recess is an intra- or inter-session one, it does matter how long the recess is. Here the Court said that any recess that is shorter than three days is not long enough to make a recess appointment necessary. And a recess that is longer than three days but shorter than ten days will, in the normal case, also be too short to necessitate a recess appointment. (The Court added that there may be very unusual cases such as a national catastrophe . . . that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response in which recess appointments would be permitted even though the recess was still shorter than ten days.)

 

[700UW]

There you go Glenn, confusing petey the low education poster with the facts and truth once again!

 

[townpete]

Recess appointments were upheld by the SCOTUS. Basically, The question was whether pro-forma sessions were actually recess or not. They ruled that they were.

So in essence, any majority party that is willing to stay in session at all times can block appointments. That has its perils.

If you read the actual ruling, they affirmed the Presidential power of recess appointments.

"The Court began with the first question presented in the case: whether the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments during intra-session recesses (breaks that occur within the two one-year sessions between congressional elections) or only during inter-session recess (the break between the two one-year sessions). Its answer on this question is a victory for the Obama administration and future presidents who want to be able to make recess appointments. Again relying heavily on a long tradition of recess appointments, it concluded that the constitutionality of a recess appointment does not hinge on whether it is made during an intra- or inter-session recess. After all, the Court noted, if the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause is to ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away, it doesnt really matter what you call the recess. If the Senate isnt there, it isnt there."

"But theres a catch one that narrows the scope of the ruling. Even if it doesnt matter whether the recess is an intra- or inter-session one, it does matter how long the recess is. Here the Court said that any recess that is shorter than three days is not long enough to make a recess appointment necessary. And a recess that is longer than three days but shorter than ten days will, in the normal case, also be too short to necessitate a recess appointment. (The Court added that there may be very unusual cases such as a national catastrophe . . . that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response in which recess appointments would be permitted even though the recess was still shorter than ten days.)

 
Except for the fact that you're wrong and trying to use typical weasel wording to cya.
 
You dont understand plain english?
 
From SCOTUS blog
 
Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English
 
And other articles...
 
Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments
 
SCOTUS strikes appointments
 
Supreme Court Says Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional
 
Strange, i don't see the wording "upheld" at all. In any form.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Except for the fact that you're wrong and trying to use typical weasel wording to cya.
 
You dont understand plain english?
 
From SCOTUS blog
 

Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English

They upheld that the pro-forma sessions were not considered recess. Therefore the NLRB appointments were struck down. They held that recess appointments were still a Presidential power.

Do you realize that the "weasel wording" used in my post is a direct quote from the linked article you posted?

How about a direct from the actual opinion written by Breyer:

"Moreover, that broader reading is reinforced by centuries of history, which we are hesitant to disturb. We thus hold that the Constitution empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess intra-session or inter-session of sufficient length."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf

You are clearly over your head here.

 

[townpete]

Do you realize that the "weasel wording" used in my post is from the link you posted?

You are clearly over your head here.

 
Oh i see, you're just trying to twist yourself into a pretzel again and trying to rationalize some absurd liberal thought?
 
Typical.

 

[700UW]

Poor Petey, just cant comprehend the facts when it doesnt fit her narrative.
 
From the court decision:
 

 
"But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point:  the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments – as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten day"
 

Does DL offer remedial reading comprehension classes?

 

[townpete]

Poor Petey, just cant comprehend the facts when it doesnt fit her narrative.
 
From the court decision:
 
Does DL offer remedial reading comprehension classes?

 
Apparently you need a crash course.
 
You do know what "answered in the affirmative" is right?
 
The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case:  whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding “pro forma” sessions – that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done – every three days.  The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal government’s argument that the “pro forma” sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the president’s recess appointments powers.  In the Court’s view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions.
 
In essence, justices say presidents can only make recess appointments when the Senate says it's in recess.

 

[700UW]

Are you that obtuse?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Apparently you need a crash course.
 
You do know what "answered in the affirmative" is right?
 
The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case:  whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding pro forma sessions that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done every three days.  [/size]The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal governments argument that the pro forma sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the presidents recess appointments powers.  [/size]In the Courts view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions.[/size]
 
In essence, justices say presidents can only make recess appointments when the Senate says it's in recess.

You do not realize that you just completely contradicted your arguments from your previous posts?

You cannot even comprehend the plain English version in the article you linked. Try to read the actual opinion on the three questions addressed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf

You are clearly over your head here.

 

[Kev3188]

You do not realize that you just completely contradicted your arguments from your previous posts?

You cannot even comprehend the plain English version in the article you linked. Try to read the actual opinion on the three questions addressed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf

You are clearly over your head here.

She never lets that stop her...

 

[townpete]

You do not realize that you just completely contradicted your arguments from your previous posts?

You cannot even comprehend the plain English version in the article you linked. Try to read the actual opinion on the three questions addressed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf

You are clearly over your head here.

 
You do know what "answered in the affirmative" is right?

 

[townpete]

She never lets that stop her...

 
You should really have a huddle with your liberal cohorts.
 
They seem to be confused with the wording of "upheld" (which does not appear in the ruling) with "in the affirmative".
 
Its not what they think it means.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

"We thus hold that the Constitution empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess"

Justice Stephen Breyer, in the actual written opinion. (Page 40, section VI)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf

You are clearly over your head here.

 

[townpete]

Its weird, i tried searching "scotus upheld recess appointments" on google.
 
I couldn't find it.
 
Rather just the opposite.
 
Can you weasel pretzel boys please enlighten?
 
lol