Quantcast
U.S. & World

High court to hear President Obama recess appointments case

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 24, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Recess appointments? Now why would Obama do that? Isn't it clear in the constitution that CONGRESS must approve his appointments? Drat the constitution! Drat it!

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 24, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    While I think that it is important to finnay get court clarefication on this issue he republicans would do well to remember that idf they ever manage to get another president in office they will be bound by his same ruling the next time they attempt the same thing.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 24, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    @ Mountanman: Perhaps this will answer your question: US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

    Oh, snap! Apparently the Constitution allows for recess appointments. Drats!

    The question the Supreme Court will address is what constitutes "the recess"?

    And for the record, Reagan made 240 recess appointments, G.H.W. Bush made 77, Clinton 140, G.W. Bush 171, as of May 29, 2013 Obama has made 32.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    June 24, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    Mountanman,

    If you want to tout the Constitution, then you need to do a better job reading it. It is literally written in the document that POTUS can make recess appointments. George Washington was the first to do it. Please, know your facts before you file your typical partisan complaint.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 24, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    Kalinda and Claudio. "At issue for the Supreme Court: What constitutes a congressional recess and does it matter when a vacancy occurs?" I never said Presidents can't make appointments, but if this is so historically and constitutionally clear cut, why is the SCOTUS hearing the case? Darn constitution anyway!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 24, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    @ Mountanman: FYI - Everyone can read your previous post.

    You stated, and I quote, "Recess appointments? Now why would Obama do that? Isn't it clear in the constitution that CONGRESS must approve his appointments? Drat the constitution! Drat it!"

    As one who understands basic English, this is clearly a question of the Constitutionality of recess appointments.

    If you had stated something along the lines of, "Obama did not make recess appointments because the Senate was not in recess," that would have been more inline with the actual question before the Court and your second comment.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    June 24, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    There's a lot of gamesmanship that goes on in Washington D.C. The big difference is that prior presidents have played the game, including their manipulation of circumstances, within the parameters of the constitution. President Obama seems less interested in the silly games and the silly constitution, so he just does what he wants and then cries about partisanship if anyone disagrees with him or tries to hold him accountable to the rules. As reported in another article, his administration's record in Supreme Court rulings is abysmal, showing his general disregard for the constitution.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 24, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @mountain man

    You do know we can read all the previous comments on this thread rights? Not only did you lie about your first commet you also either did not comprehend what kaliendra said was the reason for the review or you intentionally misrepresented it, so which is it poor reading comprehension or trouble with the truth?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 24, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    @ Spring Street. Kindly read the article, then my comments. It will really help you!

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 24, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    @DSB

    So let me see if i understand your reasoning, it is not a blatant disregard of the intent of the "silly constitution" for congressional leaders to use a procedural move to call congress into session for one minute each day that would normally be a recess for congress but Obama is showing a disregard for the "silly constitution" when he makes appointments during the time congress should be in recess? interesting logic but I am not sure I am buying it. As spring street already stated republicans might want to remember any future republican president is going to be bound by what ever court ruling comes down and given our political climate I would suspect democrats will likely be happy to return the favor.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 24, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    @mountain man

    Read the article read the comments. Did not adress or change my previous question. Have you read the article or your own previous comments? There is a real disconnect between them.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    June 25, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    @Tolstoy - I never said the games being played conform to the intent of the constitution. If they did, they would not be games but rather merely following the letter and spirit of the law. The games referenced in the article follow the letter only, in a manipulated manner that is probably a violation of the spirit of the constitution.

    Wiley politicians create games by making use of technicalities to advance their agenda and thwart their political opposition. Wake up - as the article states, they ALL do it, and I suppose that's one reason politicians are typically depicted in caricature as slick and untrustworthy.

    While other presidents have at least shown enough respect for the Constitution to abide the letter of the law through adherence to rules of even the silly games, Obama clearly thinks he's above both the spirit and letter of the constitution. He plays the game as long as he gets his way, which abides the letter of the constitution even if sometimes not the spirit, but when he can't get his way, he doesn't even play the game, violating the letter and spirit of the constitution.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    Spring street,
    I guess you missed the part of the article saying bush made no recess appointments when the senate was gone, but technically in session.

    Kalindra,
    Thank you for citing the section of the constitution BO violated by making a recess appointment while the senate was technically in session.

    Scoundrel,
    You mean the silly technical games harry reid played while bush was in office? Why is it a silly game when repubs do it but not when dems do it?