Yoo vs Tribe on recess appointments

posted at 1:45 pm on January 7, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Over at National Review, John Yoo (who you will likely remember from the Bush administration) has an interesting rebuttal to Larry Tribe’s defense of Obama’s recent recess appointments. There’s quite a bit to go through in both articles, mostly because Tribe takes so many wild swings at this particular pinata, seeming somewhat desperate to latch on to some constitutional footing which would justify the moves.

Tribe’s first point -and this one is a serious stretch – is that Article II requires that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Apparently, since legislation was passed creating the consumer protection agency and – long before that – the NLRB, then if they aren’t properly staffed they can’t enforce the law. Ergo, the President can pretty much throw out the rule book and appoint at will. Yoo responds:

Fourth, and most eye-opening, is Tribe’s claim that because the president has the duty to execute the laws, he must have the power to appoint Cordray because he needs him to execute the laws. This cannot be right; if so, it would actually require that Congress not just create but also fund executive branch positions. Suppose Congress decided it did not want to make any financial provision for Cordray or for some other government body — under Tribe’s theory, the president one supposes could just take the money out of the Treasury to pay for it. The president, it seems, could appoint someone to any open executive branch position without Senate consent, if the president feels it is important enough.

Even though I am a supporter of presidential power, I also believe that the Framers intended each branch to control its own formal constitutional authorities and functions (which is, in fact, why I defend the presidency so strongly on foreign affairs and national security). And the core power of Congress is the power of domestic legislation and the power of the purse. Congress has the power to decide what the size and shape of the federal government is to be and whether to pay for it — that is the real check on the presidency. Presidents have generally respected those limits, except during time of greatest emergency (such as the outbreak of the Civil War). Obama goes beyond anything any president has before, for reasons that are obviously partisan rather than where the national safety demands it. It is a waste of presidential authority, and one I think that will haunt Obama.

That sums it up pretty well. The question of when Congress actually stands in recess is a bit more complex, but Yoo addresses that also. The framers of the Constitution, for all of their wisdom, actually did leave a few extremely arcane items in the document which lead to much debate in the modern era. One example which often comes to mind is the President’s power of the pardon, as laid out in Article II Section 2. Pardons are to be used in cases of “offenses against the United States” except for impeachment. That phrase may have been perfectly understandable in the 18th century, but it’s nearly unique in the documents of the time. The portion in question today relies on the phrase “… during the recess of the Senate” in much the same way, without providing any concrete guidelines as to how that’s defined.

Unfortunately for Tribe, and as noted by Yoo, if the terminology isn’t clear enough, the answer would seem to be found in Article I Section 5, which reads in part, “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…” The final arbiter of what passes for a recess would seem to be the legislative branch, not the executive.

Of course, all of this skips past the original vision of the power of recess appointments which I’ve long opposed in the modern era. Yoo notes the same issue, which is that the founders were making these rules in a time when Congress would frequently be out of town, scattered around the country, and it could take extraordinary measures to gather them all together on short notice. That justified the occasional recess appointment, but it’s simply not the case today. Unfortunately, absent a constitutional amendment, there’s no getting around it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The limits of presidential power

By the end of this Presidency there won’t be an limits.

CW on January 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Every president since Bush Sr. has been pushing the envelope in terms of what the American people will tolerate from an increasingly autocratic executive branch. Neither an obama re-election of a mitt victory has any reasonable chance of reversing the trend.

abobo on January 7, 2012 at 1:51 PM

“Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…” The final arbiter of what passes for a recess would seem to be the legislative branch, not the executive.

Excellent point Jazz.

RAGIN CAJUN on January 7, 2012 at 1:54 PM

The limits of presidential power

BO: There are limits?

herm2416 on January 7, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Beware Obama/Romney. Both are narcissistic, passive-aggressive, power-hungry, arrogant and spoiled men, who know no limits.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM

IMO, bho has just opened up a can of worms for any future(if we have one) president to do as they dang well please? Unless this is taken care of by the SC, and that will be well after the election if ever, we as a Republic are really sol big time?
L

letget on January 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

“Shut up and sit down” — Obama or Romney

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Every president since Bush Sr. has been pushing the envelope in terms of what the American people will tolerate from an increasingly autocratic executive branch. Neither an obama re-election of a mitt victory has any reasonable chance of reversing the trend.
abobo on January 7, 2012 at 1:51 PM

This is an issue that goes back much MUCH further than Bush Sr.

Boomer_Sooner on January 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM

i don’t see that in Romney. Newt, definitely. Our guys are mostly pretty stable.

r keller on January 7, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Was Tribe this defensive of a President doing this when said President had “R” after his name?

Here’s the exact same guy in 2007, whining about the Evil Bush:

At its best, the American idea has inspired the world with the universal hope of equal liberty, personal dignity, and communal possibility. At its worst, it has degenerated into a specter of domination and duplicity, shockingly willing to replace competence and public spirit with patronage and self-dealing.

The last seven years have seen the dimming of the light of the American idea at home and abroad, and the trashing of the Constitution that for two centuries had kept temptations of power in check—temptations most dangerous when driven by false certitudes of fanaticism.

Our greatest national challenge is to reverse the profoundly misguided course the last two presidential elections have set, while doing three things:

First, protecting the American people from attacks by foes who think they have nothing to lose and God’s glory to gain through suicidal missions of mass destruction;

Second, insisting on government that genuinely grapples with problems and confronts their complexity while repudiating government by image and spin; and

Third, cooperating with the international community before it is too late to restore the degraded health of our fragile planet and to protect the well-being of all its inhabitants.

There is still time to revive the sources of our greatness: to replace obsessive secrecy with transparency and hubris with humility; and to reject the arrogant pretensions of an executive branch that acts as though “checks and balances” were an empty slogan, and that recklessly wields military power while keeping its doings and their human cost opaque to all.

Only by rededicating our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to the idea that defines who we once were can we hope to rekindle the flame—and, in so doing, to reclaim the future.

What a Hypocrite.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM

r keller, then open your eyes, sooner than later.

———-
Why doesn’t Obama focus on this?

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM

What a Hypocrite.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Indeed, but O’Reilly says he’s not a “hypocrite”, that he sincerely believes in his socialism/communism…therefore he’s ok.

Boycott O’Reilly/Fox.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

The next Republican President can appoint whoever he wants then? Good. Eff them.

SurferDoc on January 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

What a Hypocrite.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM

What a thoroughly unsurprising fact.

squint on January 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM

ndeed, but O’Reilly says he’s not a “hypocrite”, that he sincerely believes in his socialism/communism…therefore he’s ok.

Boycott O’Reilly/Fox.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I liked him better when he was “mean”.

squint on January 7, 2012 at 2:10 PM

The Senate was NOT in recess and was conducting business. SCOAMF is in direct violation of the advice and consent provision of the Constitution. Period. End of story.

Not that any of that matters.

Rixon on January 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Tribe is a brilliant lawyer and a zealous advocate. The problem is his only client in Lawrence Tribe, the greatest law school text and horn book champion of all times. He is the Babe Ruth , Richard Petty, Wayne Gretsky, Booby Fisher, and Meyer Lansky of the law skool book crime family. His untimley announcement, that is even before Chris Matthews could see Obama was a dud, that Obama was the best student he ever had, locked him into a lifetime of making excuses.

borntoraisehogs on January 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Things to come

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Compare that picture of bho with this one of mo(aka your excellency) and see if both aren’t evil nasty looking?

http://nation.foxnews.com/michelle-obama/2012/01/06/michelle-obama-considered-remaining-behind-chicago-if-her-husband-won-presidency
L

letget on January 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Tribe’s first point -and this one is a serious stretch – is that Article II requires that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Yeah, right. That’s why Obama is issuing Obamacare waivers which the law doesn’t say he can do, and not enforcing voter intimidation laws, and not enforcing immigration laws, and …

Evidently, the theory is that the President must faithfully execute the laws that the President wants to execute, and has no obligation to execute ones he doesn’t. In Obama’s case, he even faithfully executes laws that never existed.

Socratease on January 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM

The next Republican President can appoint whoever he wants then? Good. Eff them.
SurferDoc on January 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Also, pretty sure this isn’t a new precedent he is setting and they already adopted your position because OUR supposed conservative and republican presidents aided the precedents. That’s called an “own goal”.

Boomer_Sooner on January 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Obviously King Obama believes there are no limits on his power.

GarandFan on January 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Indeed, but O’Reilly says he’s not a “hypocrite”, that he sincerely believes in his socialism/communism…therefore he’s ok.

Boycott O’Reilly/Fox.

Your important public service message merits repeating.
Why would anyone watch a work place sexual harrassing pervert who does not know the difference between a loofa and a falafel when offering pleasure to one of his producers?
Question for BOR audience members: For the seven million dollars, paid for the sexual harassment, would you watch a BOR/victim porno? Oh, you would? Okay, how about for twicew that amount would you eat the falafel afterwords? No, not a gyro, a falafel, and that ain’t goat milk yogurt sauce.

borntoraisehogs on January 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Jazz you are the only one to finally touch on my problem with the whole thing. But I feel there is no need for an amendment. I believe that sec 2 – 2.3 is very clear.
2.3 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.

1. It says “that may happen during” that’s pretty clear. It does not say that are current, that were left over. it is CRYSTAL CLEAR why the framers put that in there. I believe it’s is rellavent today, if at the beginning of a long break (God Forbid) the Secrataries of State, Defence or any other vital head were to die.

But them comes the last part, it ends at the end of the next session.

2. So technically those appointed by O where done on Friday when the Senate adjourned. Did he reappoint them?

kara26 on January 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Why do people keep calling this a “recess appointment” when Congress is not in recess? Can we at least call it accurately? “Unconstitutional appointment”

Capitalist Infidel on January 7, 2012 at 2:27 PM

From page 201 of Tribe’s book “The Invisible Constitution”: “For my work on (a particular law review article) I was fortunate enough to have the research assistance of a remarkable young man who was then my student but who has since gone on to astonishing and inspirational achievements in his own right, Barack Obama.”

1. Tribe’s book was published BEFORE Obama was elected President. So he wrote that when Obama had done no more than Carolyn Moseley Braun, an African-American getting elected to U.S. Senate from Illinois. Tribe said that Obama’s accomplishments were astonishing and inspirational; since up to that point Braun had done the same and she was also a woman would Tribe argue that she was Godlike?

2. The acknowledgments of Tribe’s book offer thanks to all his other law students; he then names them. That’s the appropriate place to thank those who help you with a book. But he didn’t mention Obama in the acknowledgments, because to a liberal professor that’s not good enough, he had to somehow say Obama was his best student, and he does this by singling out Obama in the text of the book, which is rather disrespectful to his other student researchers.

3. And note the arrogance of Tribe’s tone. Obama was then my student. Mine. And that should in itself be worthy of special and particular praise. But he went on and did some things that were even more amazing than being the prize student of me, the great Lawrence Tribe. Wow, how impressive is that!

Folks, this is why in some small measure I pity Obama. He was a smart young black man who made the foolish choice to hang around nothing but liberal white people. And liberal white people can’t view the world objectively; they have to shower special praise on someone for not being white. Chances are very good that if Obama had not gone into academia, he would have rubbed elbows with people who would kick him in the butt when he needed kicking–like when he told the University of Chicago that he was writing a scholarly book on voting rights and he was actually writing his autobiography in his early thirties. He wasn’t told “Barack, this is not acceptable,” he was told “Barack, we’d like to give you tenure.” Honest, thoughtful criticism would have made him a better man. It’s actually kind of a sad story, but the sadder thing is America has to deal with the consequences.

radjah shelduck on January 7, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Is there even a legal way to go after a pol for not “protecting our country from enemies, foreign or domestic”? Are those just melodic words that we love to say? Honestly, why do we even administer the oath of office. It means nothing.

1nolibgal on January 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Jay Sekulow talks to Martha MacCallum about Obama shredding the Constitution- lawsuits to follow.

http://aclj.org/us-constitution/fox-news-jay-sekulow-on-obama-s-unconstitutional-appointments

redridinghood on January 7, 2012 at 2:36 PM

This is the man Bush had at DoJ and who gave the ok to torture.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo,

“If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?”, to which Yoo replied “No treaty.”

Cassel followed up with “Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…”, to which Yoo replied “I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

inklake on January 7, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Big week for Obama! He got to weaken the military, trample on the Constituion with his executive overreach and pass amnesty in disguise. Where is the outrage?

Spiders from Mars on January 7, 2012 at 2:37 PM

the fact that reid started this and dear leader’s legal counsel indicated 3 day pro forma was ok…makes my blood boil the sheer arrogance of this man getting away with it…

cmsinaz on January 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Spiders from Mars on January 7, 2012 at 2:37 PM

This is JUST the first four days back to dc after the 17 day vacation. Can you imagine with ten months to go what bho will do? This is NOT going to even look like America if bho is not stopped and STAT! But with the gutless r wonders in dc, who will stop him?
L

letget on January 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The Daily Caller asked 51 Senate Democrats if the Senate was in session on 3 January 2011 the day that Obama made the “recess” appointments and only one, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, supported the President’s position that the Senate was, in fact, in recess and, therefore, the President was constitutionally permitted to make recess appointments. Only one.

Careful Barack, That Tree Might Start Getting Thirsty.

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/01/careful-barack-that-tree-might-start.html

Resist We Much on January 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The problem with Yoo’s argument is that according to the Senate itself, the Senate was in recess at the time. One of the commenters to Yoo’s post points out that the Senate journal says:

“The Senate met in pro forma session to convene the second session of the 112th Congress at 12:01:32 p.m., and adjourned at 12:02:13 p.m. until 11 a.m., on Friday, January 6, 2012.”

So when Yoo says

“This is not a question of when does an adjournment become a recess — here, there has been no adjournment.”

it looks like he is mistaken.

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Suppose Congress decided it did not want to make any financial provision for Cordray or for some other government body — under Tribe’s theory, the president one supposes could just take the money out of the Treasury to pay for it. The president, it seems, could appoint someone to any open executive branch position without Senate consent, if the president feels it is important enough.

Didn’t Obama do this already? With the 2010 budget agreement, Congress said they wouldn’t fund Obama’s Czars. Obama agreed to it in negotiations, but upon signing issued a signing statement saying that Congress could not infringe on the Executive Branch’s right to staff itself as the President sees fit.

MayBee on January 7, 2012 at 2:55 PM

If anyone was wondering who this race-baiter posing as a lawyer Laurence Tribe is:

Physicist: Laurence Tribe law paper, edited by Barack Obama, was bad physics http://bit.ly/bRAl3C

“Tulane Physics Professor Frank J. Tipler calls Tribe’s article “a crackpot paper.” He says Tribe was mistaken to assume that scientists’ understanding of the laws of physics changed dramatically in the last 100 years:…”

Winghunter on January 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM

This is the man Bush had at DoJ and who gave the ok to torture. use Enhanced Interrogation.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo,

“If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?”, to which Yoo replied “No treaty.”

Cassel followed up with “Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…”, to which Yoo replied “I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

inklake on January 7, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Fixed.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I notice that Prof. Tribe wrote a book called “The Invisible Constitution”. I guess, so long as he has anything to say about it, it will remain invisible.

Blaise on January 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Between the Commerce Clause and the Faitfully Executed clause, the Constitution is clearly saying there’s nothing the government and lawmakers can’t do.

MayBee on January 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM

it looks like he is mistaken.

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM

See the post above yours.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

And the core power of Congress is the power of domestic legislation and the power of the purse. Congress has the power to decide what the size and shape of the federal government is to be and whether to pay for it — that is the real check on the presidency. Presidents have generally respected those limits, except during time of greatest emergency (such as the outbreak of the Civil War). Obama goes beyond anything any president has before, for reasons that are obviously partisan rather than where the national safety demands it. It is a waste of presidential authority, and one I think that will haunt Obama.

Barack Obama is not qualified for the Presidency, and some of us explained this many times over before he was elected to the Office, yet he was elected anyway.

But, now that he’s in there, that has not bestowed him with qualifications that he lacks. He remains unqualified for the office.

So the Left makes excuses for his lack of Executive competency and qualification — they got him in, now they’re stuck with defending their own rationalizations about why he was qualified while he wasn’t. To admit otherwise, they’d be admitting they lied with all the gusto they bestowed on Obama in electing him to begin with.

What Obama is engaged in — this latest alleged “recess appointment” being among the rankest of his bad deeds — is more of his unqualified-to-the-Presidency “gangsta” vengeance mayem scheming: it’s all about his turf-wars and ‘payback’ to his street or turf enemies, people he perceives who are “horning into” his “territory”.

Which isn’t at all what characterizes a qualified President but allow me to direct any readers here back to the first two paragraphs.

I expect the nation will see more and more of this bombast from Obama because he’s now so emboldened with “breaking the law” that he doesn’t think it matters if and when he does, just as it doesn’t matter that he sticks his hypothetical finger in the eye of every taxpayer when he harkens them/us to pay more, do without more, enjoy less, feel worse while he laughs on a golfcourse and sends in a four-million-dollar-charge to the taxpayers, merely one among so many more like that.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 3:08 PM

MayBee on January 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I hope that your post was missing a /sarc tag.

Otherwise, you just wrote that it would be constitutional for “government and lawmakers” to pass a bill that says you (MayBee) should be locked up for the rest of your natural life in a Federal Prison just because we (the government and lawmakers) say you should — no crime needed, just legislation.

Is that really what you meant to write?

Cecil on January 7, 2012 at 3:10 PM

…is more of his unqualified-to-the-Presidency “gangsta” vengeance mayem scheming…

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 3:08 PM

SHOULD BE:

…is more of his unqualified-to-the-Presidency “gangsta” vengeance MAYHEM scheming…

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I can’t wait until the next GOP POTUS does this same thing and we hear from the donks about how illegal it is…

ladyingray on January 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Tribe is a totally disingenuous a$$wipe. It’s just that simple.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM

At this point, Congress has to take measures to address Barack Obama’s, ummm…irresponsibility and recklessness.

That’s my polite description for what he’s engaged in. Some may call it “high crimes and misdemeanors” or, perhaps, several felonious deeds.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Del Dolemonte: See the post above yours.

The post above mine is also wrong; it claims that Obama made the recess appointments on 1/3, when in fact he made them on 1/4.

It is disappointing that there is so much wrong information posted about this issue, from the date of the appointments, to a claim that the Senate was not in recess when the appointments were made (when the Senate journal itself says otherwise).

There is a real legal issue here. The problem is that it is a very ambiguous issue, having nothing in the Constitution to guide us and having no judicial precedent that defines it. That issue is: when does a recess of the Senate become sufficient for the recess appointment clause? The Constitution itself does not specify any constraints, so any constraint has to be somewhat arbitrary.

The highest court to consider the matter (the full 11th circuit) said that it was not deciding the question, and not declaring any lower time limit. (In fact, President Theodore Roosevelt used a seconds-long recess to appoint 160 people, so that question is definitely not decided.) In addition, no court has ever decided whether or not the lack of a quorum for weeks prior informs the decision.

Yet instead of articulating the real issue and acknowledging that it is quite ambiguous, we have people claiming that it is a trivial issue, and that Obama is a lawless dictator for making a recess appointment when the Senate claimed it was not in recess. That is an absolutely false claim, and claims like that obscure the actual issue at hand.

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Every president since Bush Sr. has been pushing the envelope in terms of what the American people will tolerate from an increasingly autocratic executive branch. Neither an obama re-election of a mitt victory has any reasonable chance of reversing the trend.

abobo on January 7, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Last I saw, both Clinton and Bush sought the approval of Congress before committing troops to war. Obama, not so much.

If worst comes to worst, I’d at least want a President who sees the wisdom of defending our country — not one who thinks our country is the square foot of sand into which he just buried his doctoral head.

unclesmrgol on January 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Flipper is too big of a Flopper… to be ‘just like’ JugEars!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM

President Obama has broken his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the President the authority to arbitrarily declare Congress to be on recess, in order to force recess appointments. Since Obama’s done this, I would love for representatives in both the House and Senate to refer to Obama as “the president who broke his oath”. Let that phrase preface every sound bite, every clip, every interview that the GOP gives from now until Obama’s thrown out of office. It doesn’t matter what the subject matter is. Example:

Reporter: Speaker Boehner, how are Congressional Republicans working with President Obama on energy independence?

Spkr. Boehner: Congressional Republicans are working with the President, who broke his oath of office, every day to achieve energy independence.

Reporter: Senator Rubio, how will you convince other Tea Party Senators to work across the aisle to enact the legislation the President would like to see enacted?

Sen. Rubio: We are always in discussions with our fellow senators on the democrat side of the aisle, and we’re reviewing the proposals that the President, who broke his oath of office, would like to see accomplished.

Let no response be without a constant reminder that this President has broken his oath of office. When you talk to friends and family, preface any reference to Obama as “the President who broke his oath of office.” Let that be this thugs legacy for how he’s usurped authority over a co-equal branch of our republic. Let it mark him like Cain. The Constitution is not a document of convenience, it’s the highest law of this nation, and even Obama, who broke his oath of office, has to obey it.

President Obama, who broke his oath of office…

Weight of Glory on January 7, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Some on here are advocating that ALL presidents do this sort of thing and you would be correct. Except it is up to Congress to push back and keep them in check. Even with a Republican Congress under GWB they pushed back and gave him a lot of what he wanted but not all. Harry Reid, as well as the Queen P. on the other hand have capitulated their authority and are allowing BHO to do damn near anything he wants. This is the way the system was designed to work. The problem is when you have a dysfunctional Congress that acquiesces to the presidents power grabs. BHO is the living model of the “Peoples” dictator in that everything he does that is unconstitutional is done in the name of the people. He is such a Marxist that he truly believes that this is the right way to get things done in the US today. It doesn’t take much of a leap to see him trying to stay on for more than two terms if he could only get the little people behind him. Hugo Chavez? Any South American leader? Napoleon?

inspectorudy on January 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 3:21 PM

If you’re going to throw out claims of “so much wrong information posted about this issue”, please include some credible multi-sourced cites to support your claims.

For instance, which “Senate Journal” are you citing? There are at least 2 different entities by that name.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Why is it that lately…I begin to feel nauseous every time a thread
begins with a picture of JugEars?
Come about June…I’ll be looking at Hot Air from a hospital bed!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Has anyone else noticed thar the Dem’s, the progcauc’s in particular, seemingly have no worries in asserting extra-constitutional authority? From Pelosi’s “are you serious?” comment regarding Obamacare, to multiple czars, the usurping of Corporations like GM and Chrysler, and now determining as conveinient when congress is in or out of session as it see’s fit, without any fear of turnabout should their party lose power in the next elections?

Now why is that? How is it that they can be so sure that this will not come back to bite them in the ass?

I bring this up in light of Holder’s DOJ not enforcing the “found guilty” punishments on the NBPP’s blatantly trying to intimidate voters. Nulifying voter ID laws in SC, and I am sure in other states to follow, continuing to knowingly subvert congress’s defunding of ACORN’s rebranded affiliations, and last but certainly not least hiring from one of those affiliatioins(Project Vote from whence Obama came)into the voting rights section of the DOJ.

Could it be that this adminstration has no intent of losing the elections in 2012, regardless of how Americans actually vote? To me, their absolute fearlessness of any backlash resulting at the ballot box in flaunting the will of the electorate and their apparent preperations to at least condone, if not outright facillitating, voter fraud in the next elections would seem to portend very ominus tidings come 2012.

Anyone who’d go to such lenghts to retain power cannot bode well for those to be governed, much less those that actively sought to deny them that power. Very scary indeed when coupled with the implications inside the recent NDAA that Obama signed.

Taken all together, this looks to spell serious trouble ahead my friends.

Archimedes on January 7, 2012 at 3:36 PM

2.3 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.

Agree with kara26. Though in this case there is no recess, the language of the Constitution seems to read that the VACANCY ITSELF occurs during a recess, not the appointment.

TxTea on January 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Beware Obama/Romney. Both are narcissistic, passive-aggressive, power-hungry, arrogant and spoiled men, who know no limits.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Sorry, didn’t think I have to include what I was referring to.

Flipper is too big of a Flopper… to be ‘just like’ JugEars!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

What a Hypocrite.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Tribe’s absolutely an ideological hack.

Axeman on January 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Del Dolemonte: If you’re going to throw out claims of “so much wrong information posted about this issue”, please include some credible multi-sourced cites to support your claims.

For instance, which “Senate Journal” are you citing? There are at least 2 different entities by that name.

OK.

The Senate Journal, from the government printing office: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-01-06/pdf/CREC-2012-01-06-pt1-PgD5-6.pdf#page=1

“Under the previous order, the Senate stands adjourned until 11 a.m.
on Friday, January 6, 2012. Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:02 and 13 seconds p.m., adjourned until Friday, January 6, 2012, at 11 a.m.

And just for triple confirmation, what does “the previous order” mean in this case?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-17/pdf/CREC-2011-12-17-pt1-PgS8783-7.pdf

“Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session the Senate adjourn until the following pro forma session…”

“THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The first link in my post was incorrect; the correct link to the Senate journal is:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-01-03/pdf/CREC-2012-01-03-senate.pdf

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM

won’t happen with the squishes we have there I’m afraid :(

cmsinaz on January 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM

If nobody does anything about this, then there ARE NO limits to his power. He can do whatever he wants.

The Rogue Tomato on January 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Tribe is a spineless, highly over-hyped, sorry Supreme Court wannabe who has spent decades on his knees, wearing out hundreds of kneepads, trying to suck and blow and lick his way to an SCT appointment.

He is pathetic. If The One decided to do a “Nero” and burn Christians on poles to provide light for one of Moochelle’s evening “Trough Calls” on the White House lawn, Tribe would find a clause in the Invisible Constitution he carries around in his invisible pocket which grants the President power to do it.

“Will you appoint me now, Barry? Please? Oh please? Pretty please? I’ve got letters from people saying I’m smart. Don’t make me cry again, Barry. Please?”

Liberal legal waste matter = Tribe

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Obama goes beyond anything any president has before, for reasons that are obviously partisan rather than where the national safety demands it.

If Øbama is not stopped, this country will have he11 to pay. I believe already he plans to use this as precedent for additional appointments between now and the election. And if he gets a second term…

petefrt on January 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM

This is the man Bush had at DoJ and who gave the ok to torture.

inklake on January 7, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Perfect example of an Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy.

As it didn’t do permanent or even persistent damage it’s not like it was really torture-torture. C’mon that’s the way you libs like to argue, if it doesn’t totally fit the profile, then the gray area thesis takes over.

Axeman on January 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I think what this man has done is extremely dangerous. If the House does not take action (I’m tawkin’ to you John Boehner) then we’re pretty much done.

I think they had better tread very, very carefully on this issue and put it to a defining “end” within the next 3 weeks. Otherwise, I do believe that they are deliberately estopping themselves from taking any sort of action in the future.

Danger Will Robinson. Danger.

Key West Reader on January 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM

If, before the end of his term next year when Congress is in recess over Christmas, The Messiah appoints himself “Supreme Kingfish of the Mystic Knights of the Sea, Head Raccoon and the One and Onlyest President Hisself From Now Until Infinity Plus One,” I expect Boehmer and McConnell to do their duty and issue very strongly-worded statements of disagreement with this action.

Oh, and they should also adhere to their Constitutional roles and both say “Something must be done” in unison before they leave for the cocktail party in Georgetown.

People Power!

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Yeah, right. That’s why Obama is issuing Obamacare waivers which the law doesn’t say he can do, and not enforcing voter intimidation laws, and not enforcing immigration laws, and …

Socratease on January 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Although it’s not paramount to me, remember DOMA? Obama thought, nah, we’re not going to do that one anymore…

Axeman on January 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Wow. I like you.

Key West Reader on January 7, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Yeah, right. That’s why Obama is issuing Obamacare waivers which the law doesn’t say he can do, and not enforcing voter intimidation laws, and not enforcing immigration laws, and …

Socratease on January 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM
Although it’s not paramount to me, remember DOMA? Obama thought, nah, we’re not going to do that one anymore…

Axeman on January 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM

He is just setting precedent. Totally harmless. Totally blameless. It is ‘for the people’.

/Read that again.

Key West Reader on January 7, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Taken all together, this looks to spell serious trouble ahead my friends.

Archimedes on January 7, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Indeed. Even in the “bubble”

Key West Reader on January 7, 2012 at 4:21 PM

President Obama, who broke his oath of office…

Weight of Glory on January 7, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Very well said, there!

Barack Obama, the President Who Broke His Oath of Office.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Wow. I like you.

Key West Reader on January 7, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I do too! He’s a little bit of a smart @$$ with some of the ladies I like in here…but he’s an addition. He might help some of you veterans clean out some of the swamp that got in.

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Thanks!

Weight of Glory on January 7, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Yeah, right. That’s why Obama is issuing Obamacare waivers which the law doesn’t say he can do, and not enforcing voter intimidation laws, and not enforcing immigration laws, and …

Socratease on January 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Although it’s not paramount to me, remember DOMA? Obama thought, nah, we’re not going to do that one anymore…

Axeman on January 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I would not be surprised if Obama sent law enforcement to the House to arrest the GOP majority. What would anyone actually DO about that? And who would do it? DoJ is under trance and can’t be expected to represent the People, so we can’t count on them to do much to deter or disrupt anything Obama attempts or actually does, so who would do what?

Give more thought to how it was that Hugo Chavez nationalized banks and industries in Venezuela, and how it was that Castro just, oh, happened to become dictator of Cuba. Think about how these events transpired…and they didn’t happen over long periods of time, either.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Yet instead of articulating the real issue and acknowledging that it is quite ambiguous, we have people claiming that it is a trivial issue, and that Obama is a lawless dictator for making a recess appointment when the Senate claimed it was not in recess. That is an absolutely false claim, and claims like that obscure the actual issue at hand.

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 3:21 PM

“obscure the actual issue at hand”? If the issue here isn’t the shamelessly hypocritical behavior of Democrats who love having it both ways, what is it? ‘According to reknowned, hyperethical Democrat Constitutional scholars like Nancy Pelosi and Barry “Barack 0bama” Soetoro, pro forma Senate sessions not benefitting Democrats aren’t real sessions, but pro forma Senate sessions held in order to oppose Republican administrations are real!’

See you repulsive, intellectually dishonest goofs in court, when your past words and actions can and will be used to undermine your current, blatantly self-serving take on the issue!!! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on January 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Give more thought to how it was that Hugo Chavez nationalized banks and industries in Venezuela, and how it was that Castro just, oh, happened to become dictator of Cuba. Think about how these events transpired…and they didn’t happen over long periods of time, either.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Of all of the sane people on Fox News, I am literally shocked that nobody has brought up the issue of waiver and estoppel.

If nobody brings this up, then that is a clear signal of being complacent at the risk of being called a name “racist”.

These are not Patriots.

Key West Reader on January 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM

2.3 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.

Agree with kara26. Though in this case there is no recess, the language of the Constitution seems to read that the VACANCY ITSELF occurs during a recess, not the appointment.

TxTea on January 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM

No. That cannot be the correct reading. You are counting “during the recess of the Senate” twice – once to modify “vacancies that may happen” and again to modify “shall have the power”. “during the recess of the Senate” only modifies one clause and that one clause is clearly “shall have power to fill”. I think the lack of a comma is throwing you, but that’s how they structured the grammar back then. There are similar comma issues around the Consititution. It’s a matter of grammatical fashion. The other reading cannot be correct. If “during” is used to modify “happen” then the statement would mean that the President always has that power, even if a vacancy occured during recess and the Senate is now in session.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

John Yoo, who assisted Bush’s executive expansion, takes issue with Obama’s executive expansion? How interesting…

gyrmnix on January 7, 2012 at 5:04 PM

See you repulsive, intellectually dishonest goofs in court, when your past words and actions can and will be used to undermine your current, blatantly self-serving take on the issue!!! :)

I’m actually looking forward to the courts deciding this. No recess appointment has ever been thrown out in court in 200 years (despite many attempts). Courts generally defer to the executive on issues like this, especially when no Constitutional constraint exists for recesses, and the Senate’s own journal states that it was in recess at the time of the appointment.

The legal issue is ambiguous and interesting, but the courts will probably defer to the President here (as they always have in the past on this issue). This is particularly true in the case of the Supreme Court (if it ever gets that far). The conservatives on the court are very much in favor of strong executive power. Roberts once even asked the acting SG why recess appointments weren’t made to a position. Bush’s own OLC lawyers believe that what Obama did is perfectly Constitutional; Bush didn’t want to fight Reid on this at the time because he was an extremely unpopular President.

Republicans could have probably gotten a much better deal had they negotiated. If instead of saying “we will filibuster every nominee, so we can destroy the authority of the position,” they negotiated with Obama to get a more moderate nominee, they probably would have succeeded. (Obama just recently appointed a Republican to the extremely important Federal Reserve board, after just such a negotiation.)

Instead, by going for broke, Republicans will likely lose here, and that loss will probably go far beyond these particular appointments. Republicans will lose leverage in negotiations relating to executive appointments, and the CFPB itself will permanently have the new power it got with a director (even after the recess appointment expires).

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

The President has gotten away with far too much already, let him get away with this and he’ll go for broke, literally.

Speakup on January 7, 2012 at 5:10 PM

“That the laws be faithfully executed”? You mean like immigration laws? or laws on voter intimidation? How many laws are covered by this?

SDN on January 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Let me be clear: that Constitution thing is a remnant of a by-gone era.

AshleyTKing on January 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair

Rumor has it that James Madison had a wee bit too much ale when he composed that passage in the Constitution. Apparently carousing and wenching with that reprobate Hamilton again.

Horace on January 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I’m actually looking forward to the courts deciding this. No recess appointment has ever been thrown out in court in 200 years (despite many attempts). Courts generally defer to the executive on issues like this, especially when no Constitutional constraint exists for recesses, and the Senate’s own journal states that it was in recess at the time of the appointment.

There was NO recess. Constitutionally, there can be NO recess because the House did not pass a formal resolution in December consenting to a recess for the Senate of more than 3 days. See Article I, Section 5.

Among those that disagree with you are:

Attorney General Janet Reno
Attorney General Ed Meese
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal
Senator Harry Reid
Senator Barack Obama
Congressional Research Service
Among others…..

Furthermore, with regard to Cordray, Sections 1011 and 1066 of Dodd-Frank specifically require SENATE CONFIRMATION of the Director.

And, lest you think that this shall go nowhere in the courts, in 2010, in the case of New Steel v National Labour Relations Board, the Supreme Court overturned 600 rulings due on a technicality (or, as some would say, a “gimmick”) called the lack of a quorum. Every decision made by Cordray and the CFPB, along with the NLRB will be AND SHOULD BE challenged by all of those impacted for they are not legitimate.

As a lawyer, I am thinking of setting up a boutique practise specialising in challenging only decisions made by the CFPB and the NLRB based on the illegitimacy of the Director and the Board alone. It should be very lucrative and rewarding thanks to President-Obama-he-who-swore-an-oath-promising-to-the-best-of-his-ability-to-preserve-protect-and-defend-the-Constitution-of-the-United-States-and-broke-it’s desire to go rogue and get too cute by half.

Read:

Careful Barack, That Tree Might Start Getting Thirsty.

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/01/careful-barack-that-tree-might-start.html

Resist We Much on January 7, 2012 at 5:38 PM

It’s funny ‘cuz Obama is the guy who retook his Oath of Office just to make sure the Constitution was perfectly followed and he was legit. How things change.

MayBee on January 7, 2012 at 5:42 PM

I’m actually looking forward to the courts deciding this. No recess appointment has ever been thrown out in court in 200 years (despite many attempts). Courts generally defer to the executive on issues like this, especially when no Constitutional constraint exists for recesses, and the Senate’s own journal states that it was in recess at the time of the appointment.

The legal issue is ambiguous and interesting, but the courts will probably defer to the President here (as they always have in the past on this issue). This is particularly true in the case of the Supreme Court (if it ever gets that far). The conservatives on the court are very much in favor of strong executive power. Roberts once even asked the acting SG why recess appointments weren’t made to a position. Bush’s own OLC lawyers believe that what Obama did is perfectly Constitutional; Bush didn’t want to fight Reid on this at the time because he was an extremely unpopular President.

Republicans could have probably gotten a much better deal had they negotiated. If instead of saying “we will filibuster every nominee, so we can destroy the authority of the position,” they negotiated with Obama to get a more moderate nominee, they probably would have succeeded. (Obama just recently appointed a Republican to the extremely important Federal Reserve board, after just such a negotiation.)

Instead, by going for broke, Republicans will likely lose here, and that loss will probably go far beyond these particular appointments. Republicans will lose leverage in negotiations relating to executive appointments, and the CFPB itself will permanently have the new power it got with a director (even after the recess appointment expires).

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Despite your “well-reasoned” arguments, I’m willing to bet you that you that 0bamessiah will lose in the end on this. Even if he doesn’t, if you’re intellectually honest you’ll have to admit how pathethic Democrats are to pull these kinds of hypocritical shenanigans without being able to openly and proudly admit their double-standards.

Why is it so hard for Dems to say that 0bamessiah is at least as unpatriotic as He declared GWB to be back when He was criticizing him for running up the debt? Why won’t Democrats acknowledge what an idiot 0bamessiah looks like by His admission that He was playing politics back when He criticized the Republicans for wanting to raise the debt ceiling under GWB? Why won’t Democrats say that 0bamessiah’s signing statements and recess appointments are as unconstitutional as He and other Dems accused GWB’s of being? Democrat politicians are passive-aggressive, unadulterated cowards, that’s why, which is why I going to be so happy when pomposity itself, 0bamessiah, gets Its comeuppance over this and Fast and Furious…

Bizarro No. 1 on January 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM

The first link in my post was incorrect; the correct link to the Senate journal is:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-01-03/pdf/CREC-2012-01-03-senate.pdf

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

That link is from the day before the Appointment, isn’t it?

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Good luck with that argument; however, if you like the precedent set with by that definition of “recess,” then we will all expect you to applaud when a future Mr President Republican nominates a Mark Levin for the Supreme Court and, two weeks later while the Senate is a lunch, appoints him to the Court.

Yes, of course it would be unconstitutional and fly in the face of not only the law, but the spirit of the law as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but hey, you Progs know:

Ya gotta crack a few eggs to make a good omelet and the ends always justify the means!!!

We don’t want any sobbing from you. You have proven that you consider the Constitution and 220+ years of precedent, custom, rules, and tradition no more worthy of respect than the toilet paper that you use to wipe your bum.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2012 at 5:48 PM

That link is from the day before the Appointment, isn’t it?

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Besides, what is that supposed to show? The Senate adjourns every night. It’s not in recess every night.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

jd3181 on January 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Good luck with that argument; however, if you like the precedent set with by that definition of “recess,” then we will all expect you to applaud when a future Mr President Republican nominates a Mark Levin for the Supreme Court and, two weeks later while the Senate is a lunch, appoints him to the Court.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Someone suggested in the Comments on another board that a future Republican President could Recess-Appoint Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity all at the same time. Great Minds think alike!

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM

As it didn’t do permanent or even persistent damage it’s not like it was really torture-torture

Right, so if I rip your fingernails off, it’s not torture, because they’ll grow back.

How about if I make you stand for 24 straight hours, like the Nazi did in Stalag 17?

Or if I do mock executions, it’s not torture, right?

Go read the Geneva Convention, which the United States is a signatory to, and is legally bound.

Well known liberals Ronald Reagan and John McCain both knew what torture was/is.

inklake on January 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Del Dolemonte

Right – if I just give a new word to something.. like “enhanced interrogation” instead of torture, or “appropriation”, instead of bank robbery, it is that.

I’m curious. .do you agree with Yoo that the president could order the crushing of a child’s testicles. or burying someone alive (something he also said the president could do)?

With any luck, just like Pinochet, and company, someday Yoo, Addington, Cheney, and maybe even Bush, will be before a court. I hope they hire you as their lawyer.

inklake on January 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Someone suggested in the Comments on another board that a future Republican President could Recess-Appoint Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity all at the same time. Great Minds think alike!

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM

You know, I’ve always said that I’d love to see DC flattened so that we could start over again. I sort of thought that the fates were telling us something when there was an earthquake, a hurricane and a flood that struck the capital in the space of 2 weeks, but now I am thinking that we don’t even need Mother Nature. The exploding heads of the ruling class and cocktail party set would wipe out most of the government and media if a Republican President “recessed” Levin to the Court, Limbaugh to State, Beck to Treasury, Ron Paul to the Fed, Hannity to Defence, Ingraham to DHHS, Coulter to Homeland Security, Andrew McCarthy to Justice, etc.

Michael Savage could be Press Secretary.

LMAO!

Resist We Much on January 7, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Go read the Geneva Convention, which the United States is a signatory to, and is legally bound.

Well known liberals Ronald Reagan and John McCain both knew what torture was/is.

inklake on January 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Could you kindly point out how the Geneva Convention views unlawful, ununiformed combatants? Thank you.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 7, 2012 at 6:06 PM

With any luck, just like Pinochet, and company, someday Yoo, Addington, Cheney, and maybe even Bush, will be before a court. I hope they hire you as their lawyer.

inklake on January 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Do you know that a war crimes complaint has been filed by a Spanish lawyer against Obama at The Hague (just like with Bush)?

Inklake, please undertake to lay thy finger on that article, clause, and/or section in the Constitution that gave President Obama the power to assassinate an American citizen, gives him the power to ignore the Court’s ruling in Hamdi and strip Americans of their due process rights, and to hold American citizens indefinitely and without trial.

Thanking you in advance. I know that you will not let us down.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Beware Obama/Romney. Both are narcissistic, passive-aggressive, power-hungry, arrogant and spoiled men, who know no limits.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I think it should be obama/schadenfreude!

Romney is nothing like obama.
Romney has been a minister and served as such in his church for over 4 years. BTW, unpaid.
He then served as a Stake President, who Bishops report to. BTW, unpaid.
He pays 10% of his income to his church.
He served 2 1/2 years in France serving and teaching the people there. He has been faithful to one woman all his life.

Where is this passive aggresive, power-hungry, arrogant, and spoiled?

He never sat in a church for 20 years learning to hate other people!
Get a life and maybe some truth in your posts.

Bambi on January 7, 2012 at 6:24 PM

The Congress was not in recess. Obama knows it. Reid knows it. The rest of Congrss know it. This was a blatant in your face illegal and unconstitutional power grab. The Republicans have a choice here. Either stand by the oath they made and take the necessary measures to stop it or go down in history as useless and irrelevant. The next move is theirs.

janjan on January 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Why is it that lately…I begin to feel nauseous every time a thread begins with a picture of JugEars?

Come about June…I’ll be looking at Hot Air from a hospital bed!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 3:33 PM

His ears??? I don’t really care about his ears. It’s what’s BETWEEN his ears that makes ME want to puke.

climbnjump on January 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM

BTW, the “that” in my comment was in agreement with yours. I was referring to the calendar link.

Just in case … as I was a bit unclear in my comment.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM

With any luck, just like Pinochet, and company, someday Yoo, Addington, Cheney, and maybe even Bush, will be before a court. I hope they hire you as their lawyer.

inklake on January 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Oh Rubbish, you Silly Leftists also charged Colon Powell with War Crimes at The Hague-and then immediately French-Kissed him as a Hero when he endorsed O’bama for President.

F- (again)

Instead of weakly going back years ago to what Yoo may or may not have done in a previous Administration, please tell us why he’s wrong in his analysis of this particular issue, and why Tribe is right. So far, the only “Torture” in this Thread has been having to read your “Logic”.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2