Obama should have fought Scalia obstruction with a recess appointment

[gyroscope]

Probably the most important decision he has had to make as POTUS and he blows it.
Obama is fucking useless. The label lame duck fits him well.


This is why GOP always wins: Obama should have fought Scalia obstruction with a recess appointment
Stop dreaming GOP does anything but obstruct. It helps them!
Dems should get this by now, made recess appointment

DAVID DALEY, Salon


...All of this might have signaled to the Obama Administration that they would have to think differently and play a more aggressive game if they wanted to fill Scalia’s seat this year. They had that option for several days last week — a recess appointment that could have replaced Scalia through the end of this Senate next January, potentially tipping the balance and busting a 4-4 tie, at least temporarily, on the essential labor, reproductive rights and environmental cases coming before the Court this year. There were numerous interesting ideas for how he might do this.

Instead, Obama actively decided to let that window close. The day after Scalia’s death, Obama simply dismissed the option altogether. “Given that the Senate is currently in recess, we don’t expect the President to rush this through this week, but instead will do so in due time once the Senate returns from their recess,” Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman, told ABC News. “At that point, we expect the Senate to consider that nominee, consistent with their responsibilities laid out in the United States Constitution.”


https://www.salon.com/2016/02/24/this_is_why_gop_always_wins_obama_should_have_fought_scalia_obstruction_with_a_recess_appointment/

[Kentonio]

1. If he had, he'd have fed straight into the GOP meme about him overriding congress

Instead he's put the ball in their court knowing they'll fumble and help us in the election.

[gyroscope]

3. The GOP are the obstructionists.

That's why Obama is useless he actually cares what the GOP thinks of him?

[Kentonio]

6. It doesn't matter what they are, it matter what the voters THINK they are.

This shows them in their true colors.

[gyroscope]

8. Is Obama running for re-election?

then why does he care what the VOTERS think.

very odd statement to make. you do realize Obama cannot run for re-election don't you?

[Kentonio]

18. He was the head of our party last time I checked

So yes, I very much hope he does care about what the voters think.

[farleftlib]

19. The voters like them to be that way. They like the dirty fighting.

The MSM will give them a pass too.

The issue is that Obama should have known they wouldn't hold hearings and blew the chance to make a recess appointment and put a liberal on the court as a tie-breaker.

[jeff47]

2. Uh...The Senate has to not be in session for there to be a recess appointment.

The GOP is formally keeping the Senate in session. If the Senate is in session, Obama can't make a recess appointment.

[gyroscope]

5. Did you even read the article?

the article is talking about last week when there was an opportunity to make the appointment.

[jeff47]

9. The Senate has not had a formal recess in years.

Just not meeting is not sufficient for it to formally be a recess.

[onenote]

23. I did. Now I suggest you read post number 20.

[Agschmid]

4. I'm glad he didn't.

Sets a bad precedent.

[bigwillq]

7. I disagree

Go through the process instead.
I wouldn't want Bush or Cruz or Trump or Rubio making a recess appointment. Let it go through the process, imo

[gyroscope]

13. Do you think Cruz or Rubio would not make a recess appointment?

I think you are dreaming.

[bigwillq]

24. They would likely make a recess appointment

Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

[apnu]

10. Obama, in his years in the White House has always played everything by the book.

He has always tried to be the President of the American people and include them, by way of Congress, in all things as he's supposed to do.

Its Congress. Its all Congress. Americans keep electing Congress Critters who instantly go back on their word to represent the interests of their constituents and do whatever the fuck they want in Congress that enriches them and their political party.

But Obama is such a nice guy, such a straight guy, that he keeps trying to do this job with people who have never negotiated with him in good faith and have made a career out of poisoning wells.

I've thought, at times, that Obama might be insane. He keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results. But then I come off that branch and realize, the guy is level headed and his doing his job, despite it all. How he stays so chill is beyond me. I would be punching walls in the Oval Office every time I had to talk to that fucking dipstick McConnell. PBO is way more cool than I'll ever be.

[gyroscope]

11. The book says the President is allowed to make a recess appointment

but pleasing the GOP seems to be more important to him than doing the right thing.

[apnu]

15. It does say that.

And he can probably do that during any recess, so maybe he's being Obama and trying to get the GOP crazy train to take part in the process.

I'm not agreeing with him, personally I think he should suggest someone, say: "Have a vote on this person or I will recess appoint them and you all can stuff it." and then do exactly that when the GOP dithers as they do.

But then, I'm not Obama and that's not Obama's personality. Which is my point. The President is doing what he's always done. It frustrates me and everybody else it seems, but he's consistent at least.

[onenote]

21. No qualified SCOTUS nominee would accept being appointed via a blatantly unlawful recess appointment

Not a question of Obama's personality. Just a question of simple, clear Constitutional law.

[HappyinLA]

12. He can't even if he wanted to.

First, he tried before. Making recess appointments to fill several fed vacancies and had them all thrown out. Why? Becuase in order
to make a recess appointment, the Senate has to be in recess. The Republican's won't do that. They refuse to go into recess, pulling a pro forma session instead. What this means is the Senate is open, but doesn't have any business scheduled. So, not in recess. They just have some folks show up every 3 days to bang a gavel and go back to doing nothing.

Second, even then, a recess appointment is not a replacement. It's a temporary thing. The person named in the recess appointment only keeps the job until the end of the next Senate session. So, normally a year tops.

Also, the Democrats under Reid did the same thing to Bush. So this isn't new or evil. Just how the game is played.

[Tarc]

14. The Republican Senate has already laid plains to fill the out-of-session gaps

so there wouldn't technically be enough "off time" to do a recess appointment. They are swine, truly.

[msanthrope]

16. They haven't been in formal recess in years. They've been pulling that trick

for awhile now.....your OP piece is painfully ignorant of the litigation surrounding this issue.

[onenote]

20. David Daley isn't a lawyer and apparently hasn't read the Canning case or learned to count.

Under the Canning case, a recess of less than 10 days is presumptively too short to trigger the recess appointments clause of the Constitution. That was a 9-0 decision from 2014. You would think Daley might have bothered to read it.

What about the argument that the Senate was in recess for 10 days from Feb 12 to Feb 22. Two problems.
First, do the math. The Senate was in session on February 12. While the session didn't last long, the Supreme Court has held that days on which the Senate holds pro forma sessions can't be counted in determining whether the recess clause has been triggered. So the first day that the Senate was in recess was February 13. And it reconvened the morning of February 12. Had Mr. Canning used his fingers, he could've figured out that the Senate was in recess for only 9 days -- too short to trigger the recess clause.

Second, had Mr. Daley read the Canning decision, he would know that the Court acknowledged that for purposes of the adjournment clause -- the clause that the Court expressly relied on in interpreting the recess appointments clause -- Sundays are not counted as days. Since there were two Sundays between Feb 12 and Feb 22, even if you counted both the 12th and the 22nd (even though, as noted above, the Senate actually was in session both days), it's still only a 9 day recess for Constitutional purposes.

I should add that both the Democrats and Republicans have for some time routinely managed the Senate schedule through the use of pro forma sessions and other devices to ensure that no recess appointments could be made. The Senate repubs are a lot of things, but ignorant in the procedures of the Senate is not one of them. The idea that after several years of ensuring recess appointments couldn't be made they just happened to slip up and create a window of opportunity coinciding with the Scalia vacancy is ludicrous.

Finally, the President did acknowledge that the Senate was in recess. It was. Just not a recess that was long enough to trigger the recess appointments clause. Being in recess for under 10 days doesn't mean you're not in recess. It just means a recess appointment can't be made during such a recess.

[brooklynite]

22. When would there be a recess?