Obama's executive action held unconstitutional

[J.K. Gregg]

Sounds like it Precocity. They're fighting over the definition of "recess."

[Precocity]

[John Galt]

well basically the sophistry is that they weren't "in session" even though the executive has no power to determine what the rules of the legislative branch are. unwillingness to act is not the same as inability to act, mr. president.

progressives get so mad about rules like separation of powers and blocking mechanisms so things don't get done, e.g., the constitution

in an amicus curiae, senators claimed this action "eviscerated" two of the senate's powers: 1) power over presidential appointments and 2) power to set it's own rules. and frankly it did; i don't think there's any way this isn't anything other than blatantly unconstitutional

[Aaron]

[The Dude]

It's absurd that the Senate can prevent the WH from appointing anyone ever so long as the vacancy happens prior to the official recess.

I'm curious to see how the SCOTUS handles it. Precedence and history versus the technical language.

Either way, it needs to be clarified. If it goes with the latter, it just shows how increasingly dumb the US Constitution is today.

[J.K. Gregg]

The "consent of the senate" is one of its checks on the executive. It shouldn't be reduced, eliminated, or made less effective. It's that way for a good reason.

[The dane]

If this ruling stands, it basically gives the opposition party veto power over any and all presidential nominations.

The result is going to be that a lot of important positions in government will go unfilled for years at a time.

[J.K. Gregg]

[The dane]

[J.K. Gregg]