What's new

GOP's (constant) " NO - NO - NO " reward

Ridiculous.

A Black GOP president?

The Republicans threw Herman Cain into a blender.


The GOP voted 158-11 to a deny a Muslim who has been a republican for over a decade into the GOP. Joe Kaufman from 'Americans Against Hate' (if thats not an oxymoron I do not know what is) even sided with the GOP against Hamze.

I also do not believe the GOP is interested in a woman as POTUS either. Look at the two women who have run thus far. Palin and Bachmann. No one takes them seriously. When the GOP gets behind a strong intelligent and well spoken women that may indicate that change is underway.
 
The GOP voted 158-11 to a deny a Muslim who has been a republican for over a decade into the GOP. Joe Kaufman from 'Americans Against Hate' (if thats not an oxymoron I do not know what is) even sided with the GOP against Hamze.

I also do not believe the GOP is interested in a woman as POTUS either. Look at the two women who have run thus far. Palin and Bachmann. No one takes them seriously. When the GOP gets behind a strong intelligent and well spoken women that may indicate that change is underway.


If someone has been a republican for a decade how can you deny him being something he already is?

He was trying to get on the BC exec committee......you do know he is the S Fla head of CAIR which is a Hamas supporter?

Can't infiltrate a political organization w/o trying to join.

Are you aware CAIR has purportedly infiltrated the White House?

Start at 4:14



The FBI refuses to meet with CAIR over its ties to terrorism.

Hamas identifies itself as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

"We know that the Muslim Brotherhood, from their own documents, has said that they want to infiltrate all levels of government and civil society here in America to destroy from within," Poole said.

The Obama administration seems to see the Brotherhood as an ideal partner for its Muslim outreach policies.

Obama administration officials say they are now engaged in dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

That policy apparently extends to the Brotherhood in America as well.

And now, the rest of the story.....
 
The GOP voted 158-11 to a deny a Muslim who has been a republican for over a decade into the GOP. Joe Kaufman from 'Americans Against Hate' (if thats not an oxymoron I do not know what is) even sided with the GOP against Hamze.

I also do not believe the GOP is interested in a woman as POTUS either. Look at the two women who have run thus far. Palin and Bachmann. No one takes them seriously. When the GOP gets behind a strong intelligent and well spoken women that may indicate that change is underway.


Don't know what this has to do with recess appointments while there is no recess.
The Senate confirms nominees. The republicans wanted a more centralized power for the department, and an executive committee that other departments have.
Most Preisidents respect the rules of congress, it was not long ago that a POTUS signed and order to allow wirelss wiretaps under concerns of nationial security. the Dem controlled Congress and main stream media cryed that this was an abuse of power and unconstitutuional, albeit, it stayed. If it was wrong for the POTUS to use what he believed to be legal then, why is it okay now?
 
Don't know what this has to do with recess appointments while there is no recess.
The Senate confirms nominees. The republicans wanted a more centralized power for the department, and an executive committee that other departments have.
Most Preisidents respect the rules of congress, it was not long ago that a POTUS signed and order to allow wirelss wiretaps under concerns of nationial security. the Dem controlled Congress and main stream media cryed that this was an abuse of power and unconstitutuional, albeit, it stayed. If it was wrong for the POTUS to use what he believed to be legal then, why is it okay now?


Nothing. It was in response to post #44

The question is whether or not a pro-forma session of Congress where Congress is meeting for 30 seconds every third day and conducting no business is really in session. Obama thinks it is not.

I do not think it is right but that is not what is at issue. The question is what is legal. As I posted above, the argument made by someone else (which I tend to agree with right now) is that Congress will not contest this issue due to the fact that they do not want the Judiciary involved in every rule Congress makes. Besides, it allows the republicans to #### and moan about the nasty dems with out having to make a legal argument.
 
Nothing. It was in response to post #44

The question is whether or not a pro-forma session of Congress where Congress is meeting for 30 seconds every third day and conducting no business is really in session. Obama thinks it is not.

I do not think it is right but that is not what is at issue. The question is what is legal. As I posted above, the argument made by someone else (which I tend to agree with right now) is that Congress will not contest this issue due to the fact that they do not want the Judiciary involved in every rule Congress makes. Besides, it allows the republicans to #### and moan about the nasty dems with out having to make a legal argument.

It's not a Congressional rule, it is a part of COTUS.


Heritage’s Todd Gaziano called Obama’s move a “tyrannical abuse of power.” Gaziano explained earlier today that the Senate is not even in a recess, which would allow a recess appointment.

The Constitution, in Article I, section 5, plainly states that neither house of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate—consistent with the requirements of the Constitution—is having pro forma sessions every few days. In short, Congress is still in session, and no one in Congress is saying (or can reasonably say) otherwise. It does not matter a wit that most Members of Congress are not in town voting on legislation, because ending a session of Congress requires the passage of a formal resolution, which never occurred.

Under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the President has the power to fill vacancies that may happen during Senate recesses. That power has been interpreted by scores of attorneys general and their designees in the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for over 100 years to require an official, legal Senate recess of at least 10–25 days of duration. (There are a few outlier opinions, never sanctioned by the courts, that suggest a recess of six to seven days might be enough—but never less than that.)

The President’s purported recess appointment of Cordray would render the Senate’s advice and consent role to normal appointments almost meaningless.
 
I guess the simple question to ask Obama is this " When you were a senator just a few years ago and harry reid and the senate used the same maneuvers to keep Bush from making recess appointments, where was your leadership on changing it, after all you are a constitutional scholar?
 
Bush was told by his consul that he could do it but Bush decided not to do it. All presidents have made recess appointments. It seems to be part and parcel of doing business. Is it hypocritical.of Obama to do So? Sure but show me a politician who is not. ... Que Sparrow and a Paul comment....

I think there is a valid legal question behind all this. Is a single senator showing up to open and close the senate a Congress in session? I doubt the framers had this as their intent. Any decision will need to be made by the COTUS and I dont see that happening.
 
Bush was told by his consul that he could do it but Bush decided not to do it. All presidents have made recess appointments. It seems to be part and parcel of doing business. Is it hypocritical.of Obama to do So? Sure but show me a politician who is not. ... Que Sparrow and a Paul comment....

I think there is a valid legal question behind all this. Is a single senator showing up to open and close the senate a Congress in session? I doubt the framers had this as their intent. Any decision will need to be made by the COTUS and I dont see that happening.

Bush didn't do it because it would not have been within the DOJ and recognized previously established case law on the subject of pro forma recess.

Its a simple explanation by Obama's own DOJ....why do you fail to grasp the obvious?

They will be the ones tasked with an explanation as to why the Obama admin

went around a previous SCOTUS explanation of their own interpretation?

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
 
Without a SCINTILLA of Republican Bi-partisanship on the horizon/coming from the GOP Congress, President Obama makes recess appointments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/obama-nlrb-recess-appointments-labor-unions_n_1184285.html

There was NOTHING wrong with this man from Ohio/Cordrey !
Screw with the BULL, you get the "HORN's" !!!!!!!!!!


You fail to grasp the core issue here....screw Cordray. this entity was created and if allowed to go forward operates with a 400 million dollar budget without ANY Congressional approval or oversight whatsoever. Like 400 million unanswerable or uncontrollable by Congress. You know, now the government could fund Acorn or Planned parenthood or other type organizations who have a party agenda....duh? Government entity wholly funded and operating without any oversight. And that doesn't even enter your thoughts?
Why would the Obama admin create something like this anyway w/o any Congressional oversight or control? Hmmm?
 
Back
Top