Obama uses power of appointment, sidestepping Senate

I know exactly how you feel. I felt the same way about Dumbya--and had to tolerate his regime for eight years. Get used to it; get over it.

yeah obama sure wanted them bush tax cuts to be perm which the right have been chanting non stop about since 2001.

"make them perm... make them perm.... make them perm"

obama is also sitting on a record of empty seats because the GOP is blocking a RECORD of his appointments to judgeships.

But yeah you are right obama always gets his way.. like with gitmo and like with finance reform and like... oh never mind you probably watch fox and wont hear a damn word.

Seriously, the ignorant Right shows it's ugly head yet again.

gets what he wants

What he wants is this Nation to go in a positive direction with everyone on board.

Why are you so against that? Do you really hate someone you've NEVER MET who works FOR YOU everyday, that much?

#2 - I fine that Obama will do what he wants, gets what he wants....no matter what he has to do to have what he wants. My disrespect for the man grows.

Can you give us some concrete examples of the things he has done to gain your disrespect?

@#2

Well, it seems to me, this President has been reaching across the Aisle since his inauguration; you know that BI-partisanship thingy! The only thing he has been getting back, is a slap on the wrist. After all, he did win the election by a wide MAJORITY of the voters. You know, that elections have consequenses thingy. For example, the Republicans are now saying the last election was their mandate to carry out the wishes of those that elected "THEM", this time.

To them, I say; Well what about the "National" election that this President won, what about the mandate those voters sent? Not individual State,local or district outcomes, but that National vote! A REAL majority of the people; not gerry mandered slices of the populace that give a predetermined outcome!

That VOTE was not Regressive enough to honor those voters....I guess! The 2008 voters have been denied the chance to petition thier goverment, and have their voices and wishes acted on,per their vote, by the Obstructionist GOP and their friends. Are these people, the Republicans, like"fair weather turtles", if the weather is not to their liking, retreat back into the SHELL,and do nothing, until the storm passes? What kind of leadership is that???

But yeah you are right obama always gets his way.. like with gitmo

It's not a matter of not getting his way; he's finally seen the light.

Obama made statements in ignorance during the campaign and lo and behold, practice is much harder than preachin'

And my disrespect for the right grows as they obstruct every nomination for federal judges and other appointments.

My disrespect grows for those that bitch about Obama appointing those that are necessary for the operation of the government while they applauded Bush. You are so hypocritical

Edison - you disrepsect the GOP? It is the President's responsibility to get his cabinet staffed properly and HE has let the position of deputy attorney general sit vacant since last FEBRUARY when the previous one resigned due to conflicts with Holder.....he wants to leave the seat open for 10 freaking months and wait for recess appointment because he doesn't have the votes to confirm properly? That is entirely his own fault.

lisaed -

he wants to leave the seat open for 10 freaking months and wait for recess appointment because he doesn't have the votes to confirm properly?

Do you really NOT understand what's been going on?

Thinks--no good reason? Have the freaking confirmation hearings then.

Do you really NOT understand what's been going on?

Yes

lisaed - Two freaking words...Secret Hold. Freaking Google it. It does a freaking body (and a mind) good!

lisaed

Being totally unfamiliar to the workings of the government, the Constitution and the laws I understand your problems of comprehension. Maybe you should just listen and read rather than comment.

Blocks occur when legitimate concerns publicly expressed are NOT addressed. Do you agree with Obama's recess appointment of Cole? Why or why not? Do you share republican concerns about his ties to AIG and his comparison of 9-11 to the drug trade ?

Nope I don't share anything with the right wing. I don't believe in following liars, distortionists and psychos like the right sheep do.

lisaed -

Blocks occur when legitimate concerns publicly expressed are NOT addressed.

Complete and total BS. They're used as a political weapon!

Holds were not common until the 1970s, when they became more common due to a less collegial atmosphere and an increasing use of unanimous consent to move business to the floor.

Can't you guys, just concede that the Secret Holds being used against Obama's appointments are largely (I'm NOT even saying "exclusively") political shenanigans? You'd greatly enhance your credibility to occasionally recognize the absolute, uncontrovertible truth...even if it's only once in a blue moon.

Dave -

They're not using 'secret holds' - the Republicans are simply objecting to the motion to move the vote to the Senate floor - a motion that requires unanimous consent according to the rules of the Senate (Rule VII - paragraph 2). Sessions objected when Leahy called the motion on December 2 and Chambliss objected when Durbin called the motion on December 22.

Lisaed -

Re #2.8 - Obama didn't let the position 'sit vacant'. He announced his nomination of Cole on May 21 and the nomination reached the Senate on May 24.

Re #2.11 - they did have the freaking confirmation hearings. They had it last June 15 and the Judiciary Committee recommended Cole be approved. The Republicans extended the report to the Senate one time following the hearing (the max that they could) and sent Cole additional written questions. Even after that, they sent Cole additional written questions. I believe the last ones he received and responded to were in November (but I may have my dates off a bit). Pure out-and-out stall tactics on the part of the Republicans at this point.

rls8r - I stand corrected.

Do you share republican concerns about his ties to AIG and his comparison of 9-11 to the drug trade ?

The first, mildly, but not enough that I think it'd make a lick of difference. The second doesn't both me in the slightest. He said both are horrible things. If you disagree, something's wrong with you. You could say the comparison is skewed because 9/11 was worse, or (much more accurately) because the effects of the drug war have been worse, but then you'd be comparing horrible levels. As you accuse Cole of having done.

You keep bringing up 'our system of government'. The power to make recess appointments is expressly given to the President in our Constitution. Doesn't that make it part of 'our system of government'?

I fine that Obama will do what he wants, gets what he wants....no matter what he has to do to have what he wants.

Apparently, you have utterly no clue about how recess appointments actually works, mrsrachelm...

The U.S. Constitution requires that the most senior federal officers must be confirmed by the Senate before assuming office, but while the U.S. Senate is in recess the President can act alone by making a recess appointment. To remain in effect a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again; in current practice this means that a recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year.

Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution,

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

Presidents since George Washington have made recess appointments. Washington appointed South Carolina judge John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and Rutledge subsequently attempted suicide and then resigned.

New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 through a recess appointment. This was done in part with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern Catholic on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. Eisenhower made two other recess appointments, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Potter Stewart.

George H. W. Bush appointed Lawrence Eagleburger Secretary of State during a recess in 1992; Eagleburger had in effect filled that role after James Baker resigned. George W. Bush appointed John R. Bolton U.N. Ambassador during the 2005 summer Senate recess.

Recess Appointment

But did they hold hearings on the nominees, Therese? No. They just block them, spew bull@!$%#, and move on while keeping a tight lock on the nominee.

The majority of the House and Senate brings to the floor the agenda.

They did not have the Votes. The President knew they would not be confirmed because of their baggage, so he side stepped the Senate and appointed them anyway?

The Dems held power in Congress, why did not Reid call for a Vote, that's his job. He did not have the Senate approval that is why, they said 'No"

You may not be aware of parliamentary procedures of the United States Senate, and if so, this may be eye-opening and educational for you.

Secret hold

A secret hold is a parliamentary procedure within the Standing Rules of the United States Senate that allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. If the Senator provides notice privately to his or her party leadership of their intent (and the party leadership agrees) then the hold is known as a secret or anonymous hold. If the Senator actually objects on the Senate floor then the hold is more generally known as a Senatorial hold.

So, no, the majority of the House and the Senate cannot bring a nominee to a floor vote, if a single senate has a secret hold on that nominee. This also applies to Senate legislation.

Not obstructionists? Hmmmm....let's look at one of the nominations and see what's what.

• The previous Deputy Attorney General - David Ogden - resigned the post to return to private practice in February, 2010.
• Obama announced that he would nominate James Cole to replace Ogden on May 21, 2010.
• Senate receives nomination on May 24 (Congr. Rec. S4163)
• The Senate Judiciary Committee held James Cole's confirmation hearing on June 15, 2010. It lasted a little over 2 hours (see here). There were questions about whether or not he would guarantee Miranda rights to suspected terrorists - but otherwise, there were no significant questions. Senators Grassley and Sessions submitted some written questions to Cole later.
• The Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably on Cole's nomination on July 20 (see Congr. Rec. S6024)
• The recommendation to proceed to the vote to approve Cole's nomination sits on the Senate Executive Calendar from late July until early December.
• On December 1, eight former Deputy Attorneys General (both Democrat and Republican) send a letter to the Senate strongly urging "... that the Senate vote on the nomination of James Cole as soon as possible."
• On December 2 Patrick Leahy (D-VT) calls for unanimous consent to vote on Cole's appointment after 2 hours of debate - and challenges Republican Senators that have held up the confirmation vote to come forward and state their concerns. Senator Sessions (R-AL) comes forward and objects. His primary concern seems to be that Cole regarded the 9/11 attacks as 'criminal acts' rather than 'acts of war'. He also raises a concern about Cole's actions when he was at AIG. However, while identifying those questions - he nevertheless objects to a debate and vote. (Read Senate floor conversation at Congr. Rec. S8370-8372). We should note that Cole was asked about his views on terrorism during his Judiciary Committee hearings, but no questions were asked during the hearings about AIG although it was known that he worked there.
• On December 22 Senator Durbin (D-IL) again asked for unanimous consent that the Senate consider the appointment of Cole. Senator Chambliss (R-GA) objected, citing "some issues that have been raised by the intelligence community". (Congr. Rec. S10994-10995)
• On December 22 Cole's name was returned, along with over 175 others, to the President since no action had been taken on their nomination during the 111th Congress.

So - the President follows our 'system of government' and nominates a Deputy Attorney General. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings and recommends approval of the appointment to the Senate. However, Senate Republicans won't allow the full Senate to debate the appointment and vote. Now - who's 'disrepecting' the process?

Not obstructionists?! As of December 15 there were 38 judicial nominations stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar by Republicans who would not allow their nominations to come to a vote. Of those 38 nominations, 29 were reported unanimously, without a single negative vote from the 19 Republican and Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. Another three were reported with strong bipartisan support with only a small number of 'no' votes. Of these 32 bipartisan, consensus nominees, 17 of them were nominated to fill judicial emergency
vacancies.

Again - who's disrespecting the system? Who's not obstructionist?

The Dems held power in Congress, why did not Reid call for a Vote, that's his job. He did not have the Senate approval that is why, they said 'No"

Wow! Therese - you really don't have an understanding of how the Senate (or 'our government') actually works beyond what you get out of a high-school civics text, do you?

Reid wanted a vote. We read,

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday said he would like the Senate to vote on Deputy Attorney General nominee James Cole before the Senate adjourns this year. Reid said a senator is holding up the nomination for the No. 2 position at the Justice Department. The Democrat didn't name the senator who is preventing the full Senate from considering the nominee. (source)

Reid wanted the vote to proceed. His designated managers for this issue, Leahy and Durbin, put the question before the Senate TWICE, and twice was it objected to by Republicans.

Civics education in the parliamentary procedures of our government is for libruls and elitists. Real patriots just speak from the gut about what the government shouldn't do.

rls8r - How DARE you confuse them with the facts?!?!?

How one Senator can block appointments. Yep, that is Senator Shelby (R) of Alabama earlier this year, because of - oh! there it is not getting $85Billion for two pork projects in his state.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1539-GOP-Senator-Blocks-All-Obama-Appointees

Not obstructionists, the Senate has objections and reservations of the worthiness of some of the appointments. This is their job, as aggravating as this may be to the President, if the Congress has concerns with appointments of his, then the President should review and choose someone who does not carry baggage for concern.

Therese Nelson

Republicans in the Senate have been a minority for the past two years and likely to be for the next two years. Seems to me in essence what your are saying is that the Republicans should be respected and not the majority.

Not obstructionists, the Senate has objections and reservations of the worthiness of some of the appointments.

Such as? Let's see some real objections based on fact and not on the Republicans' desire to block every single thing Obama has attempted.

Did you read the article, Jack? The reasons for questioning the appointments was in there. They were also quoted by Therese in one of her comments.

Did you read my post? I asked for real objections not the right wing obstructionism.

You mean like appointing convicted felons as has been done by the previous administration?

Therese

You can be certain to look for more of the same from him until 2012. There are some hot issues that will be coming up in the new Congress that came before this past Congressional Session that did not pass. Those issues will be shoved through in the same mannor as Cole has been appointed. Obama has already made that public knowledge. He has the power in his hands to do this, but abuses the power when it goes against the best interest of our country.

Studiusbagus, If it is wrong then, does it make it right to do so now? That trend must be broken or the hopes of putting our country on the right track will be a lost cause.

Studiusbagus, If it is wrong then, does it make it right to do so now?

Given that he was talking about Bush appointing convicted felons, unless you are also talking about Obama appointing convicted felons, you're creating a false equivalency.

You should know what I am implying. Let me clarify that for you. Any President using his Presidential powers to make decisions that would go against the best interest of our country to push any agenda that caters to his own ideals only! Any President! Obama included.

Question for you Studiusbagus and Jabbausaf, did you defend Bush on the decisions he made that you knew were wrong?

If Bush made a decision and I believe he had the intent of Americans' betterment in mind then yes I did. If I knew they were wrong, then no I didn't, but regardless of party, he was elected as The President of The United States. I didn't address him as Shrub, Georgie, imposter in chief, or any of the infantile names in comparison that many of the right Newsviners here have. I may not have liked him, or his methods, but I never disrespected the Office or the man personally while he was in office. He was always OUR President, not yours or yours or yours and disclaiming him as many have done.

As a matter of fact there are a couple things I have and will always praise him for until I die.

1) Bush had the most diverse ethnic and culturally staff of any President in the history of the USA.

2) Bush stepped inbetween the haters and the Muslims to protect the hard working middle eastern citizens that were getting the backlash from the WTC disaster. And he did it in very short order.

3) Nobody, left or right could ever accuse George Bush of being a prejudice person, it is just not his nature and he proved that many, many times during his term.

"He has the power in his hands to do this, but abuses the power when it goes against the best interest of our country."

Oh? And the felons he appointed....done with "Midnight appointments, because he knew they would not get ratified by Congress because of their convictions....the same midnight appointments Therese is railing against now for Obama appointing a citizen that does not have that record.

Talk about abuse of power!!

I didn't address him as Shrub, Georgie, imposter in chief, or any of the infantile names in comparison that many of the right Newsviners here have.

I always figured "Bush" was enough of an insult, particularly after 8 years of his presidency.

1) Bush had the most diverse ethnic and culturally staff of any President in the history of the USA.

2) Bush stepped inbetween the haters and the Muslims to protect the hard working middle eastern citizens that were getting the backlash from the WTC disaster. And he did it in very short order.

3) Nobody, left or right could ever accuse George Bush of being a prejudice person, it is just not his nature and he proved that many, many times during his term.

This is absolutely true. I'd love for right-wingers today to go back and look at Bush's positions on immigration and Islam. It's probably the reason they keep trying to disown him as a conservative.

It's probably the reason they keep trying to disown him as a conservative.

Aren't they trying to rehabilitate him, this week?

You know, I really can't keep track.

Side stepping the Senate seems to be the only way Obama knows how to appoint controversial members to his Administration.

mon glas

Actually it is a process where one or more Senators can side step the Senate in holding up an appointment. The Constitution provides the remedy for the President to side step the side step.

Your argument is with the Constitution of the United States!

Therese Nelson re: post #5.1

Your comment is off topic.

You can be certain to look for more of the same from him until 2012.

mon glas

And rightly so, especially when we get more of the same from the Republicans. You can even look further to 2016!

Maybe he was naive enough to think that Republicans would let these nominations come to an up or down Senate vote, as they kept saying should happen for Bush's nominations when it was Democrats holding it up.

And I would like to see a source for where Obama said he wouldn't use recess appointments, because it is a line that you've picked up and adopted and are repeating ad nauseum that you had never said before, which tells me that you suddenly saw it at an unreliable source somewhere, and you're repeating it without having looked into it. Maybe I'm wrong.

If they're bad at their job, they won't be confirmed and they'll be out of the job at the end of 2011.

Which is how the recess appointment system works, and how it has always worked, for the entirety of American history since George Washington.

Then to side step the Congress to appoint questionable persons in power was good for who?

If there are questions then the Senate should have the nominees answer those questions in a hearing. The Senate isn't doing that so if you are going to be upset about this be upset with the Senate they are the ones not doing their job.

Then to side step the Congress to appoint questionable persons in power was good for who?

The country.

The Senate made their choice of some of these appointees, No.

It is the President who side stepped the Senate and appointed them anyway.

The article stated that the Senate would NOT confirm them, the President knows this.

Since you say that "The Senate" said no to these appointees, I'm sure that you have a record of hearings on them as to their suitability, and a record of a vote in the Senate to either confirm or reject these appointees.

And if the Senate said no to, as you said, "some of" these appointees, why were the others not approved?

Why do you speak of The Senate as a single uniform homogeneous body, when it is specific individual members of the Senate, isolated Senators, who are holding up these appointments? Is it because saying that "The President sidestepped The Senate" sounds more alarming than "The president sidestepped a senator"?

Show me the votes where the Senate rejected these nominees, and then you will be correct that the entire Senate as a voting body would not confirm them.

The Senate made their choice of some of these appointees, No.

I was unaware they were voted on, oh that's right they weren't. The Senate has said nothing, Senators have abused Senate rules to prevent the appointments to even be voted on.

It is the President who side stepped the Senate and appointed them anyway.

Of course he had to their are positions that haven't been filled in over a year that need to be filled

The article stated that the Senate would NOT confirm them, the President knows this.

I knew you didn't read the article, it doesn't say that any where.

Seeder, the Democrats have had the majority but the Senate Republicans have filibustered almost every bill and appointment for the last 4 years, especially the last two. A filibuster requires 60 votes to break, pretty hard when there are only 59 Democrats in the Senate.

The Senate GOP holds a historical record for using the filibuster more than any Congress in U.S. history. Might want to get your facts straight before blaming the Democrats for not being able to pass bills and appointments.

As I posted in a previous comment, the Democrats had the Power and Majority in the House and Senate for the last two years.

That is true, and an interesting factoid that has no bearing on this subject.

If these appointments were not brought up for a Vote it is not the Republicans cause!

because of Senate rules it actually is

To put this as just bipartisan is not factual, the Dems owned the power both in House AND Senate. They just could not get confirmation of confirmation votes from the Dems.

You know you aren't doing much to disprove the study that found Fox "News" viewers more ill informed.

Posted this upthread but here it is again.

The majority of the House and Senate brings to the floor the agenda.

They did not have the Votes. The President knew they would not be confirmed because of their baggage, so he side stepped the Senate and appointed them anyway?

The Dems held power in Congress, why did not Reid call for a Vote, that's his job. He did not have the Senate approval that is why, they said 'No"

You may not be aware of parliamentary procedures of the United States Senate, and if so, this may be eye-opening and educational for you.

Secret hold

A secret hold is a parliamentary procedure within the Standing Rules of the United States Senate that allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. If the Senator provides notice privately to his or her party leadership of their intent (and the party leadership agrees) then the hold is known as a secret or anonymous hold. If the Senator actually objects on the Senate floor then the hold is more generally known as a Senatorial hold.

So, no, the majority of the House and the Senate cannot bring a nominee to a floor vote, if a single senate has a secret hold on that nominee. This also applies to Senate legislation.

Dear Thinking Viners,

Therese Nelson is one of those of whom Hillary Clinton famously said, "if Obama walked on the water, they'd say it's because he can't swim."

It's hard to know for sure why NOTHING..ABSOLUTELY NOTHING this President does gets a pass from them. I thought maybe they'd congratulate him when he allowed those pirates to be killed back in early 2009...but all of a sudden they started supporting piracy.

These folks CANNOT be swayed by logic. Any attempt to do so results in both failure and frustration. In their world, facts are twisted into lies and the loudest voice wins the contest. The Constitution is often trotted out and held up for praise, and then cursorily disregarded if its tenets contradict their deep-set beliefs.

They often call themselves "patriots" or "real Americans". Nothing could be further from the truth.

CANADIAN Dave - are you a "real" American?

Yes, from the same seeder that labeled Soros as a Socialist foreigner in her title, of which he is neither. But the sensational headline about an American citizen who's a capitalist doesn't have to be accurate now does it?

CANADIAN Dave - are you a "real" American?

As much as anyone else that calls themselves a "real" American. And I even pay taxes and vote!

Our form of government is designed to have separation of powers

Yes, and those powers include responsibilities that each branch is primarily responsible for. Our government was designed to reach loggerheads occasionally and was also provided with the means of correction and overcoming those loggerheads.

What our government is NOT supposed to do is continually come to a screeching halt time after time, after time, after time because of the unbending political will of a political party and that party's desire to attain power at ANY COST. Newt Gingrich tried it and it failed because of the powers of the administrative branch and this attempt at political bullying should fail as well.

Good job Mr. Obama.

Canadian Dave

Paying taxes and Voting Disqualifies you from that "self annointed" group of Real Americans. They take sadistic pride in doing neither! At best Dave, you can only be included with the other 299 Million (e pluribus unum) of us! To that I say; WELCOME MY FRIEND, and thanks for the help in beating back the DARKNESS sweeping "OUR" land!!!

Thanks, ldj. I'm proud to be a "real" Canadian American...just like Michael J. Fox.

patriot8888 -

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/29/932205/-CNN:-61-of-Republicans-rooting-for-failure

Are YOU a "real" American?

If you consider New Jersey (or is it New Joisey?) part of the United States.

I have to admit being born there but do not reside there. Although I do like their Governor.

The same Governor and his Lt. Governor that were on Vacation during a devastating snowstorm at the same time and neither came back to handle the problem?

@#6.21

UM....7 over par, and still swinging? Probably better to cede this hole... or get the regressive Gov to move ... to another time and place???

patriot - Check the link in #6.20 These are "real" Americans...or at least self-described ones.

That was a great point expressed in post #6.13

The same Governor and his Lt. Governor that were on Vacation during a devastating snowstorm at the same time and neither came back to handle the problem?

Don't go there Studius. That's why we have cell phones. What's he going to do - drive the plow?

One could make the same comparison about Barry soaking up the Hawaiian sunshine while the mainland is suffering one natural disaster after another.

Record Rain on the West Coast - flooding so bad that some areas have been declared a disaster

Blizzards in the Heartland, Blizzards on the East Coast

Airline traffic snarled for a week.

US citizens suffering all across the country while Barry's on the back 9.

One could make the same comparison about Barry soaking up the Hawaiian sunshine while the mainland is suffering one natural disaster after another.

Is the state government so incompetent that the federal government needs to constantly hold their hand? Looks like you're saying we should take power from the states and pass it to the federal government.

Blizzards in the Heartland, Blizzards on the East Coast

Snow in winter, more at 11.

patriot - How 'bout answering some of the dozens of valid questions posed to you instead of just deflecting?

Here's another one:

What's he going to do - drive the plow?

Did you read about the Mayor of Newark?

Yes - the Mayor of Newark is more than capable - that's why Christie did not have to return from vacation.

Is the state government so incompetent that the federal government needs to constantly hold their hand?

Apparently Studius thinks so. Actually, the State Governments are much more competent than the Federal. The Gulf Oil Spill was quite enlightening in that fact.

patriot - How 'bout answering some of the dozens of valid questions posed to you instead of just deflecting?

How can I help you Dave? What burning questions do you need answered?

Patriot -

How can I help you Dave? What burning questions do you need answered?

This is WAY back from #1.43. I'll try again:

1) You've posted before, that Senate Democrats could have cleared the vote. Then please explain the procedures by which "any one of 12 Republican senators" could (and DID) block the vote

Actually, the State Governments are much more competent than the Federal.

So Obama is fine taking his christmas vacation with his extended family, and the governors should be the ones handling these crises. Got it.

Hmmm, almost 2 hours....and no answear. The deafening sound of crickets from Patriots corner.

She makes the assertion that because the Mayor of Newark drove a snow plow Christie didn't have to attend to the rest of the State of New Jersey about snow removal, emergency transport, power outtages etc.

Heck, at least Obama went to the Gulf, Bush flew over and Christie left the problem to the 3 rd in power....a Democrat.

Nice deflection....are you off looking for another death panel article ?

Hey Studius...did you enjoy patriot's "Death Panel" post as much as I did?

CANADIAN Dave - are you a "real" American?

Patriot

Seems everyone has gone off topic so there I go to.

I am an American. Now I don't know how you people that call yourselves "real Americans" and "patriots" are ordained but I am not putting myself in with you as there are those that use these terms in reference to themselves that have plotted to and killed police officers, blew up and flew a plane into Federal Buildings and call for the secession of American States.

Groups and persons that has officially been called the biggest threat to Homeland Security.

Yes. I certainly did Canadian Dave....I even left a question about Darvon and Darvocet being yanked by the FDA and wondering if that was a Death Panel move too.

That was a hilarious article!! Couldn't believe the run around logic to try and blame Obama for a law that hadn't even benn activated yet.

It's difficult to tell who's the most obtuse right-wing zombie on the Vine, lately. Is there a competition on that I haven't heard about?

law that hadn't even benn activated

The law was enacted on March 23, 2010.

As for your other question and was entirely off topic.

Patriot - STILL can't answer a simple, logical, well-phrased, lucid question, huh? Better go watch Fox and see if they have any tips for getting the tough ones deflected.

Actually Dave I had you on IGNORE.

I think you want an answer regarding the 12 Senators who blocked the Senate vote process for the Deputy Attorney General.

The fact is that he is such a prince of a guy that not one but 12 people found him objectionable. This is way beyond partisan politics - the man has been deemed incompetent for the job in the eyes of the 12 Senators.

8888 -

The '12 senators' were the ones who wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton threateningto hold up the appointment of Ford as ambassador to Syria. There are no '12 senators' associated with the vote on confirming Cole as the Deputy Attorney General. There are the 8 former Deputy Attorneys General who recommended that the vote move forward to confirm him as soon as possible, though.

patriot - You're just a peach. You post as though you're a "political genius" but can't even define political partisanship.

All 12 senators are REPUBLICANS, dearie. That IS the definition of partisanship.

Would you mind if I nominated you for "Troll of the Year"?

No I do mean Partisan. You need to read more carefully.

Speaking of trolls.....

Patriot -

Speaking of trolls.....

Please finish this thought. To my understanding, it will be one of the few times you've EVER done so.

A Troll is someone who does not have good intent and "flame baits" other Viners. Does this sound familiar?

You.

I think your personal nasty comment is against the COH.

I like and agree with Patriots comments.

Very telling.

"The person I agree with is not a troll, but the person I disagree with is being nasty!"

The truth is, you just wanted to make a seed utterly ungrounded in reality, and have a nice little echo chamber where your fellow Obama-bashers could complain about the president, facts and truth be damned.

If you want something like that in a nice clean right-wing friendly environment, you've got plenty of places like that on the internet, where dissent is squelched and intellectual discussion is ridiculed and derided. Redstate.com, freerepublic.com, etc. If you have a problem with having your inaccurate assertions challenged, go there. It'll be a glorious echo chamber where you can complain about Obama to your heart's content, say whatever you want to say about politicians and people you disagree with, and you can be confident that your misrepresentations will never be challenged or questioned.

"... they are not good for the positions."

Therese - I have a hard time convincing myself that you've given these appointments any critical thought at all. Do us a favor - do me a favor - post two or three 'bullet' points about each of the recess appointments that, in your mind, make the candidates 'not good' for the positions. Support your opinion. Tell us why they are 'not good' and not simply that you think they are 'not good'. You say that you're looking for informed debate - then start it, here and now.

Therese - I have a hard time convincing myself that you've given these appointments any critical thought at all.

ris8r, I thought the same thing. I don't think her critical thought goes any further than parroting the points in the article which she accepts at face value with no further investigation on her part.

And that's the Truth - perfect!

rls8r

You don't really expect comprehension of that do you?

Only by others, EE ... only by others.

Actually, after all this - my mind's eye sees a dementia patient, rocking slowly, back and forth - quietly mumbling the same words over and over to the wall - just a little spittle running out of the corner of her mouth. At first, people try to pull back the blinds and show what day and time it actually is - but to no avail. Then, they talk louder, hoping to catch her attention - but that too is in vain. Finally - the family and friends are simply resigned to the fact that nothing will get through - that she is simply living in her own little world.

That's where I am now - so I'll leave now - quietly backing away, making sure that her cover is pulled up so she won't be chilled - perhaps leaving a glass of warm milk on the nightstand beside the rocker, and with a soft kiss on the top of the head in the hopes that she's happy where ever it is that she is.

Good job at sidestepping and deflecting, Therese. LOL

We are asking whether any critical thinking went into your claim that "they are not good for the positions." And that would be "critical" in the sense of "characterized by careful evaluation and judgment ."

Based on your #7.5 that would not seem to be the case. It appears the only definition of "critical" you know is in the sense of "criticism" of commenters who present facts you choose to ignore. LOL

Your close-mindedness is showing. LOL

I ask why would not Harry Reid bring to the floor the appointments if he had the Votes?

We've explained, and provided links to the rules of the Senate, why Harry Reid COULD NOT BRING THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE FLOOR.

So, your question has been answered, whether you choose to read or not.

From the article:

In the nomination fight over Mr. Cole, Democrats in the Senate tried to confirm the former Justice Department official by unanimous consent but Republicans objected, expressing concerns about his approach to terrorism cases and his work for troubled insurer American International Group.

Since unanimous consent is required, the objections of a small minority of Senate will prevent the nomination from being voted upon.

The nomination of Mr. Ricciardone, another career diplomat who served as ambassador to Egypt during the Bush administration, had been held up by outgoing Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, who had concerns about his work in promoting democracy while he was stationed in Cairo.

One single Senator, Sam Brownback, was able to prevent the nomination of Mr Ricciardone from coming to the floor for a vote.

The nomination of Mr. Eisen, a lawyer who has worked in the Obama White House on ethics and reform, was being held up by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, who said the nominee had made misrepresentations to Congress about the firing of a federal official.

One single Senator, Sam Brownback, was able to prevent the nomination of Mr Ricciardone from coming to the floor for a vote.

So you see, as evidenced by the article that you continually insist we read without actually addressing our presentations of that actual rules of the Senate, it is entirely possible for One. Single. Republican. Senator. to hold up the confirmation in the Senate of a nominee.

It is not harry Reid refusing to bring it to the floor because he doesn't think he has the votes. That is a lie.

It is not "The Senate" rejecting these nominees because there are problems with them. That is a lie.

It is the obstruction of individual Republican Senators that prevent this, because of the rules of the Senate. Because of the rules of the Constitution, President Obama is able to exercise the Constitutional powers of law afforded him as President, to make these recess appointments anyway. In a year, they will come up for a confirmation vote. If the Senate approves of them, they will proceed. If the Senate disapproves of them, then those appointments will leave their offices at that time. This is the truth.

Using the very same quotes jabba used and highlighting the -real- pertinent issues:

In the nomination fight over Mr. Cole, Democrats in the Senate tried to confirm the former Justice Department official by unanimous consent but Republicans objected, expressing concerns about his approach to terrorism cases and his work for troubled insurer American International Group.

Thus they raised reasonable concerns on extremely important things to consider when looking at Mr Cole.

The nomination of Mr. Eisen, a lawyer who has worked in the Obama White House on ethics and reform, was being held up by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, who said the nominee had made misrepresentations to Congress about the firing of a federal official.

Just who I want...someone who made misrepresentations (a very nice way of saying "lied") to Congress. Obviously this candidate is not exactly stellar material and raising concerns about this was reasonable and proper.

The nomination of Mr. Ricciardone, another career diplomat who served as ambassador to Egypt during the Bush administration, had been held up by outgoing Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, who had concerns about his work in promoting democracy while he was stationed in Cairo.

The above needs clarification and details. To get those see: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/16/brownback_s_case_against_proposed_turkish_ambassador_ricciardone to get a rundown of exactly what those concerns are and why they exist. Upon reading this, it's obvious the concerns aren't unreasonable and -do- have merit.

It doesn't matter to me whether it is one Senator (of either party) or several raising concerns as long as those concerns are relevant ...and the above noted concerns -are- most definitely relevant.

Could it be that no matter what a Republican does, if it in any way, shape or form gets in the way of any agenda of the Democrats, it will be labeled as "obstructionism" even though these procedures have been in our government operation for many years and have been employed by BOTH sides at various times?

Doing away with or blatantly ignoring the system of checks and balances that have been in place when concerns are pointed out simply to give one party or another a speedway to do whatever they want, appoint whomever they want etc endangers our fully representational and balanced government in favor of one that is unbalanced and favors a government of a "ruling party". That's a very dangerous place to go for this country.

Thus they raised reasonable concerns on extremely important things to consider when looking at Mr Cole.

Just who I want...someone who made misrepresentations (a very nice way of saying "lied") to Congress. Obviously this candidate is not exactly stellar material and raising concerns about this was reasonable and proper.

The above needs clarification and details. To get those see: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/16/brownback_s_case_against_proposed_turkish_ambassador_ricciardone to get a rundown of exactly what those concerns are and why they exist. Upon reading this, it's obvious the concerns aren't unreasonable and -do- have merit.

These all may very well be valid concerns. They may be relevant. They may also be overblown and exaggerated. Since the Republican Senators involved won't let it come to the floor of the Senate, we'll never know. That's why these appointees should have their appointments debated upon the Senate floor, and then subjected to a vote by the Senate as a whole. If the concerns are legitimate, then they won't be confirmed.

even though these procedures have been in our government operation for many years and have been employed by BOTH sides at various times?

Like recess appointments?

I will give you credit for this though, at least you actually answered and responded to the things in my post, thus facilitating a genuine debate, instead of endlessly bleating "That's off-topic!"

This is what I am wondering too. Why is it now that this is brought up in a slanderous tone when it was simply ignored during the last administration?

John Poindexter, Convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress.
Appointed to head DARPA by Bush

Elliot Abrams, Pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress in the Iran-contra affair.
Appointed as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy by Bush

Otto Reich, Convicted in 1990 on five felony charges of conspiracy.
Appointed by Bush to direct Inter American affairs at the State Department. President Bush used the tricky recess appointment procedure to bypass potential hostile and damaging questioning by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

John Negroponte, Convicted of lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair
Bush appointed him as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

Rogelio Pardo-Maurer. Supported Contra forces in Nicaragua.
Appointed by Bush as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Western Hemisphere affair

somehow Obama is held to a phony higher standard, why is that?

Well, they tell us it's NOT because they're racists. So we can breathe easier on THAT one!

It's the pot calling the kettle, black.

somehow Obama is held to a phony higher standard, why is that?

Well, they tell us it's NOT because they're racists. So we can breathe easier on THAT one!

Canadiana Dave

You take racism out of the equation and what is left is that Obama's intelligence is a hugh threat to his opposition.

President Obama ran to be the President, and he is the President. Presidents since George Washington have used recess appointments. President Obama is a President. President Obama is using recess appointments. This is a Constitutional ability granted the President. It is well within The Rules. Isolated Republican Senators, two of them, out of 100 total Senators, have been using the Unanimous Consent rules to prevent a vote on these nominations. But this is also well within The Rules. Individual Senators can block appointments. Presidents can override those individual Senators with a recess appointment, which will only last for 1 year. These are the rules of our country, and if you insist on misinterpreting and misunderstanding the rules, I will have to assume that it is not ignorance but malicious and intentional misrepresentation of our political process, with the intent of undermining a president you do not like.

So are you ignorant of the laws of our country, or are you intentionally lying?

News Alert, Pres Bush has left the building, the White House.

News Alert, Two years into the Presidency of Pres Obama.

News alert..we're still digging ourselves out of the messes that Bush got us into...

This is just the most recent example...

But in Washington, where anything beyond last week’s news cycle is considered ancient history, the jury-rigged nature of the Bush plan—and the fiscal sleight-of-hand involved—have been all but forgotten.

“We knew that, politically, once you get it into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it,” says Dan Bartlett, Bush’s former communications director. “That’s not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-02/tax-cut-extension-the-gops-fiscal-time-bomb/ (

In Republican math, 2 Senators utilizing existing Senate Law to prevent the confirmation of appointees is representative of the opinion and intent of all 100 Senators.

Good Lord I up-voted one of your comments. What is this world coming to?

President Obama ran to be the President, and he is the President. Presidents since George Washington have used recess appointments. President Obama is a President. President Obama is using recess appointments. This is a Constitutional ability granted the President. It is well within The Rules. Isolated Republican Senators, two of them, out of 100 total Senators, have been using the Unanimous Consent rules to prevent a vote on these nominations. But this is also well within The Rules. Individual Senators can block appointments. Presidents can override those individual Senators with a recess appointment, which will only last for 1 year. These are the rules of our country, and if you insist on misinterpreting and misunderstanding the rules, I will have to assume that it is not ignorance but malicious and intentional misrepresentation of our political process, with the intent of undermining a president you do not like.

So are you ignorant of the laws of our country, or are you intentionally lying?

I guess you are not reading my comments and understand the word "NO". the Senate said "NO"

I guess you aren't reading any of our posts wherein we have conclusively proven to anybody with the ability to read and to be honest that the Senate has not had the opportunity to say yes or no, because two individual Republican Senators have singlehandedly prevented the Senate from voting on it. So when you say "The Senate said No", you are telling a lie, as there was no vote.

Please READ and comprehend.

I can read just fine. You are incapable of reading and comprehending, or you're just lying intentionally.

It's about damn time !....

And I could not have said it better.

That's how I feel too...I was wondering if he would ever do this...

I'm hoping that follows through with more appointments during this recess. I am fed up with the RDA--Republican Dink Around.

President Obama ran to be the President, and he is the President. Presidents since George Washington have used recess appointments. President Obama is a President. President Obama is using recess appointments. This is a Constitutional ability granted the President. It is well within The Rules. Isolated Republican Senators, two of them, out of 100 total Senators, have been using the Unanimous Consent rules to prevent a vote on these nominations. But this is also well within The Rules. Individual Senators can block appointments. Presidents can override those individual Senators with a recess appointment, which will only last for 1 year. These are the rules of our country, and if you insist on misinterpreting and misunderstanding the rules, I will have to assume that it is not ignorance but malicious and intentional misrepresentation of our political process, with the intent of undermining a president you do not like.

So are you ignorant of the laws of our country, or are you intentionally lying?

It's against the CoH to post the same comment over and over again. In case you weren't aware....jabb.

So are you ignorant of the laws of our country, or are you intentionally lying?

Not much of a choice is it.

It's against the CoH to post the same comment over and over again. In case you weren't aware....jabb.

And yet, it's perfectly okay for Therese to keep saying

So, the response for doing the same actions that were perceived reprehensible by Pres Bush is ok BECAUSE Bush did it? LOL

or

You are off topic, this article is not about Bush, it is about our Two Year President Obama.

again and again and again.

Do you want me to change my post by one or two words each time when I'm replying to her repetitious and nearly identical posts? Because I can do that.

I rewrite or expound on my argument

wow

http://images.elfwood.com/art/h/o/hollander/099_insanity___skarbog.jpg

Like all your comments Therese you have a total lack of comprehension and knowledge. Your attempt to well never mind

Well Therese I believe it may work much better than yours. Being close minded to everyone's facts but your own, which don't exist, seems to suggest that you are having problems using yours.

Cole called the Sept. 11 attacks "criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian population" - like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Cole went on to write that the United States has faced "many forms of devastating crime," from the drug trade to organized crime to rape and child abuse. "The acts of Sept. 11 were horrible, but so are these other things," he wrote.

NY Rep. Peter King said Cole's appointment indicates the administration wants to continue to implement "dangerous policies" of treating terrorism as a criminal issue. "I find it absolutely shocking that President Obama would appoint someone who has diminished the 9/11 terrorist attacks by comparing them to the drug trade and who believes that a civilian courtroom is the appropriate venue for 9/11 trials," King said in a written statement.

These "Republican" statements are from the same 9/11 supporters who...

painted (the 9/11 worker's fund) as a "slush fund" for New York that the rest of America would be forced to fund through tax increases.

Yes but the 9/11 fund did get approved. It was thought to be such an exceptional event that Congress finally came together and left partisanship at the door to hammer out the agreement.

And your point is?

James Cole, our newly-appointed Deputy Attorney General equates 9/11 to the drug trade. Same difference to him.

That's awful... 28,000 people in Mexico have died as a result of the drug trade violence, with 5,600 dying as a result of drug trafficking violence in 2008 alone. Illicit drug use in the US kills 17,000 people annually. It's way worse than 9/11.

It's hilarious that you're so willing to attack Obama and his choices that you'd come out in favor of the drug trade.

Now why are we wasting $4+ billion $$$ on a 9/11 responders fund if it's all the same.

Why are we wasting $14 billion on the drug war if it's not as bad as 9/11?

Patriot -

It was thought to be such an exceptional event that Congress finally came together and left partisanship at the door to hammer out the agreement.

LOLOLOL...Republicans were SHAMED into voting for it...that, and because their precious Christmas holiday was in jeopardy.

Read the NEWS sometime, patriot!

That would require an ability to read.

Why are we wasting $14 billion on the drug war if it's not as bad as 9/11?

They have declared a WAR on drugs. 9/11 is just a criminal act.

patriot - Do you REALLY have an energy consulting company? Does it have a web site where I can go see what is it you do during your non-Newsvine time?

I'm interested in your thinking process and how it translates into business opportunities.

Well, at least your screen name is accurate. The rest of it is a pack of lies though.

The death are panels back in Obama care.

Speaking as a senior citizen, this stupid assertion angers me beyond words. It is false and it is meant to frighten senior citizens like myself. But the fact is many of us are better informed and we will not be seduced by the lies perpetuated by the likes of you. Shame on you. Shame on your parents for not teaching you the value of truth.

Sorry to have awaken you there, Stevie. You can roll over and go back to sleep now. By the way, if you are getting that niggling little feeling of impending doom, it's not coming from me. Ignore it at your own peril.

Calling a lie a lie is as wrong as saying a blue sky is blue. If you don't like it I don't care. I suspect that if Obama told you the sky was blue you'd spit out a breathless seed about how red it is, and if people posted pictures of a blue sky you'd say it's off topic.

You are misinformed, the Death Panels are back with Legislation that was pushed through during our Christmas Season, in fact I posted a seeded article about it.

And yet, you're not complaining when a republican actually does it...

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/11/death-panels-in-arizona/

Just the facts ON THIS ARTICLE, not the former Pres Bush actions

Which you seem not to grasp, especially the fact that every President since Washington have done the exact same thing...

In all truth I could call you a liar if I chose; but that would be against the COH.

If calling you out for saying things that aren't true is a CoH violation, I am, right now, calling you a liar. For saying things that aren't true. I can source my statements wherein you're lying, and I can provide extensive evidence of posts where we've endeavored to correct you, and you've persisted in lying.

If you want to report that, go ahead. If I get suspended or banned, I will be getting punished for telling the truth, and as a moral person I can live with that.

The "liar" thing is a joke, give me a break.

Well, the fact that you're willfully denying evidence that contradicts your assertions isn't...

It sure does...

oooooh, that is sooo clever of you Dave. Why I think you are the very first poster to ever say that!

I know, it's too hard to argue with the facts, so just throw out little witticisms that have never ever been used in the past. You are too funny.

Refuse... Let me know if you EVER recognize a fact sometime. You'll get a gold star on your report card.

President Obama ran to be the President, and he is the President. Presidents since George Washington have used recess appointments. President Obama is a President. President Obama is using recess appointments. This is a Constitutional ability granted the President. It is well within The Rules. Isolated Republican Senators, two of them, out of 100 total Senators, have been using the Unanimous Consent rules to prevent a vote on these nominations. But this is also well within The Rules. Individual Senators can block appointments. Presidents can override those individual Senators with a recess appointment, which will only last for 1 year. These are the rules of our country, and if you insist on misinterpreting and misunderstanding the rules, I will have to assume that it is not ignorance but malicious and intentional misrepresentation of our political process, with the intent of undermining a president you do not like.

So are you ignorant of the laws of our country, or are you intentionally lying?

jabb:

I'm reporting you for repeatedly posting the same comment over and over and supplying those posts to the NV mods.

If Therese is going to ignore the facts and repeat her misinformation over and over, IMO jabbasauf is justified in posting the same comment over and over in an effort to explain to her how the process actually works. But Therese stubbornly refuses to listen.

I'm reporting you for repeatedly posting the same comment over and over and supplying those posts to the NV mods.

Go for it.

The facts are pretty simple here, the Senate would not confirm Pres Obama's appointments because they did not feel they were a good choice for the country.

Incredible!

I have been told I am incredible before.

There is a cure for that.

I do not need a cure for it.

Remember denial is the first response of those that are in need of help.

Nice try but again you missed the brass ring and fell off the horse.

zippppppp right over your head

Therese:

Certain viners (that's plural not singular) are known pot stirrers and enjoy encouraging flame fest give and take drama as much as the CoH will allow. The best response to such individuals is absolute silence. They might make another couple comments even more exaggerated than before to try to illicit a response from you but if you simply stop responding they eventually go to greener pastures to get their drama fix.

Of course the positive flip side of their constant personal comments is that adds just that many more pennies to the little bit you make on NV that can go to charity, LOL!

The Senate chose not to confirm these appointments.

"The Senate" was never involved. They neither confirmed nor refused to confirm (or rather, "advise and consent") these appointments. There was never a Senate vote.

Sorry Therse, but my point is still the same. You either don't understand what actually occurred or you are choosing to lie to support your 'beliefs'. The simple fact is that the senate never had the opportunity to offer "advise and consent" on these appointments because of senate rules that permit a single senator from allowing the nomination to come to the floor. I don't know why you can not understand that or refuse to admit that it was the actions of individual Republican senators that stopped these appointments and not "the senate". The senate never had the opportunity to review the appointments nor give and up or down vote because of the actions of (in each case) a single GOP senator. . . a single GOP senator who neither had to identify him/herself nor had to provide the content of his/her objection. That Therese is not, "The Senate chose not to confirm these appointments."

President Obama ran to be the President, and he is the President. Presidents since George Washington have used recess appointments. President Obama is a President. President Obama is using recess appointments. This is a Constitutional ability granted the President. It is well within The Rules. Isolated Republican Senators, two of them, out of 100 total Senators, have been using the Unanimous Consent rules to prevent a vote on these nominations. But this is also well within The Rules. Individual Senators can block appointments. Presidents can override those individual Senators with a recess appointment, which will only last for 1 year. These are the rules of our country, and if you insist on misinterpreting and misunderstanding the rules, I will have to assume that it is not ignorance but malicious and intentional misrepresentation of our political process, with the intent of undermining a president you do not like.

So are you ignorant of the laws of our country, or are you intentionally lying?

Let's see - we read this blistering critique:

"There is a serious lack of individual thought and actual non-partisan analysis on the vine.",

just after we've read this insightful comment,

"I'm not sure how I feel about some of the president's unchecked powers like this one."

OK - your complaint certainly has some merit. Now, let's see some individual thought and non-partisan analysis. Back to you, sizzler.

Just like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I understand why it happens, but I don't think it is being handled in the spirit of the original intent.

This is one of the more active places for political discussion. I come here hoping to see just a little objectivity and non-partisan points of view. I get frustrated because is basically doesn't exist.

I'm not saying this to offend anyone, just get off your partisan high horses. that's all.

So, sizzler -

How would you suggest that it be handled? Do you favor changing the rules of the Senate, and move away from their traditional policy of seeking unanimous consent (as Ron Christman has suggested in #1.38 and #19). Do you think that perhaps some changes in our governmental procedures should be made in the 'advise and consent' process - perhaps limit the recess appointments to, say, 6 months, or force the Senate to consider the nomination of any recess appointments immediately upon their return from recess? Something else?

The 'spirit of the original intent' was to allow the President to flesh out his Executive Branch when Congress broke to take a then-long recess. Recesses are not so long any more, but other procedures are now taken by Senators that result in similar long-term vacancies in the Executive Branch. If not recess appointments - what other avenues would you suggest could be made to allow the President to fully-staff his Departments?

From what I read, we're not on our high horses any more. We've fallen off and are now slugging it out in the mud. Jump in - do some non-partisan analysis and come up with some individual thought. Make some suggestions. We don't bite (hard). Make the 'Vine the better place you lament that it's not. Stop cursing the darkness and strike a match. (See, I've even voted your comments up as encouragement)

rls8r

Sorry it took me so long to return.

Sometimes the easiest solutions are the best. Make these appointed positions be required to be filled in a certain amount of time. Senators can still block but not endlessly. Give the Senate a certail amount of time to have a hearing and then vote.

Maybe I'm making it too simplistic but I think it would do the government well to simplify a lot of things. Checks and balances are obviously needed, but a block shouldn't be for an unlimited period of time.