Quote (cambovenzi @ May 18 2013 11:35am)

Its funny how when the courts rule against something he likes its a "zomg uninformed" travesty, but when they butcher the constitution to pass things like Obamacare its AOK

That was a nice little tangent of insults and unrelated nonsense tho.

Quote

So again, trolling or dumb. Admittedly the bar was already set on the ground when it came to your competence of government and law but thanks for tripping over it and providing a laugh. Up to this point there's only been two rulings against the NLRB that followed this thinking, one by the three-panel gong show discussed earlier and the other a 2-1 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that came with the same gaping holes in logic and the ignoring of settled law.

Just like your moronic accusations of me being a hypocrite when you don't know anything about the topic being discussed are meaningless without sufficient examples, these rulings are meaningless for the same reason. You just can't ignore 200 years of jurisprudence and 200 years of authority vested in the executive branch without a reason, or because you don't like it anymore because your party isn't heading the executive branch. This is actual hypocrisy, different than your imagined hypocrisy, and it'll play for the mouthbreathers in fantasy land but it's won't fly with people who understand Senate rules and law. These decisions have rested entirely on a contrived whining about pro forma sessions, and hilariously they still allow for inconsistencies (see: their claims of invalidation under some pro forma bodies but not others)

So thanks for trying, but maybe you'd have been better off with the same insipid attempts at insulting me. You, too, should go put your face in a book.

Edit: I'll actually settle for just one ruling, hopefully it'll reach the Supreme Court. That, to me, is a win-win scenario regardless. This nonsense either gets struck down, or there's another glowing, bright-red example than Antonin Scalia is a political shill. I'm fine with either outcome really.

Quote (cambovenzi @ May 18 2013 01:15pm)

If they agree with you they are informed. If they dont they are moronic trolling dumb shills 

nvm the facts, the constitution, or court rulings that state recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions

Quote

Consistent with the structure of the Appointments Clause
and the Recess Appointments Clause exception to it, the filling
up of a vacancy that happens during a recess must be done
during the same recess in which the vacancy arose. There is no
reason the Framers would have permitted the President to wait
until some future intersession recess to make a recess
appointment, for the Senate would have been sitting in session
during the intervening period and available to consider
nominations. The earliest authoritative commentary on the
Constitution explains that the purpose of the Recess
Appointments Clause was to give the President authorization “to
make temporary appointments during the recess, which should
expire, when the senate should have had an opportunity to act on
the subject.”

Quote (cambovenzi @ May 18 2013 02:56pm)

"Either trolling or dumb" - take 4.

Quote (JayKwik @ May 18 2013 11:16am)

Are you incompetent? I know you're hilariously uninformed but seriously. I was going to give you a pass on the New Black Panthers because I felt sorry for you, but mentioning what happened with the NLRB twice is pushing the tolerance I have for others being criminally uninformed. Do you think a three-judge panel, two Reagan appointees and a Bush Jr. appointee, invalidating 190 years worth of appointments is Obama "corruption" and "abuse of power?" It's looking like you're just another member of the headnodding crowd, and every time some know-nothing mouthpiece erroneously claims Obama administration foul play you just gobble it up as if it's true because you're not informed enough to know better. But then again why let facts get in the way of a good story?

Fake gaveling isn't a sufficient cause to invalidate nearly 200 years of executive authority, especially when that's their sole defense, and they offer no explanation for the fact that the executive branch has been making intrasession appointments since 1867 and recess appointments to fill vacancies that preceded a recess since 1823. Humorously the decision doesn't withstand even a textual challenge, meaning that when it goes to the Supreme Court Scalia should oppose the ruling on the basis of what he claims to believe. That or of course he'll once again expose himself as nothing but a party hack, but I think he'll find safety in 5 other justices (at least) striking this nonsense down to vote the right way.

Three bumbling judges proved that they're still political shills for the party that appointed them because that party can't win a national election to make the appointments, can't retake the Senate to impart their version of advise and consent, and despite the unprecedented level of judicial obstruction still can't block Obama's nominations and appointments enough to their liking. In other news dog bites man, stocks rise, and IOKIYAR.

Bu-but they covered up Benghazi, ACORN, and Boston was a false flag! RARRRR! Go put your face in a book, this is embarrassing.

Quote (bigbrd222 @ May 18 2013 11:55am)

You're like the Gordon Ramsey of pard

Quote (JayKwik @ May 18 2013 07:58pm)

Thanks for backing up and tripping over the bar again, as your first and every subsequent post makes clear you are obviously incapable of focusing on the subject matter and have instead focused almost exclusively on flimsy attempts at insulting me. But as always, a sincere thank you for making me laugh.



And, again, we're right back to the fact that they have no explanation for this power being held by the executive branch for 190 years, and they have no explanation for supporting certain outcomes reached by pro forma while at the same time denouncing others as illegitimate... because they were reached by pro forma. Once more this is actual hypocrisy, and not the imagined hypocrisy that you seem to struggle with. It's clear why they ruled they did: a handful of political shills decided to help the party that appointed them in their ancestral effort to block as many appointments as possible, while also making it harder to make appointments in the future which also suits their political interests. That, or it's just another classic case of IOKIYAR.

In any event attempting to portray this ruling as "Obama corruption" is disingenuous and indicates little to no understanding of the ruling, which seeks to invalidate nearly two hundred years worth of appointments (including a large swath of current-serving judges) and rip up settled jurisprudence. If one were to actually agree with the ruling (pause for laughter) then their problem would be with the way that the last ~35 presidents made recess appointments, and not the appointments that Obama made. That, or they're hypocrites just like the judges. Either or.

Quote (guywhosebrother @ May 18 2013 09:35pm)

We should start a pot going where every time Jay insults someone, that person puts in 5fg. Whoever he quoted last when he finally makes a post without talking down to someone gets the pot.
Should Atleast get someone a few thousand.

Quote (guywhosebrother @ May 18 2013 10:35pm)

We should start a pot going where every time Jay insults someone, that person puts in 5fg. Whoever he quoted last when he finally makes a post without talking down to someone gets the pot.
Should Atleast get someone a few thousand.