Obama NRLB appointments invalidated by court

[non-starter]

Amused Slew wrote:

REWRITING REALITY, again !!???
non-starter wrote: I found it, you just won't publish that you got it off Yahoo or Wiki answers ....
THEN the lies began, LMAOROTFU~!
non-starter wrote: No, I guessed, because you weren't forthcoming with your source
OR MY NEW FAVORITE-
non-starter wrote: I found similar postings on Yahoo answers and Wiki answers
You posted to the urban dictionary to support your position...It's called tampering and you're clearly a duplicitous/dishonest POS... Have a nice lie... Oh sorry, I surely meant life.

Those "nonsense" words are from your trusted source, slewsie. Quit being such a slewche.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php ...
1. Slewche

Someone who is being extremly slow or dumb.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php ...
1. slewsie

An idiot, dolt, someone who talks incessantly about things they are completely wrong about.

But hey, it is your valuable source after all.

[non-starter]

Amused Slew wrote:

REWRITING REALITY, again !!???
non-starter wrote: I found it, you just won't publish that you got it off Yahoo or Wiki answers ....
THEN the lies began, LMAOROTFU~!
non-starter wrote: No, I guessed, because you weren't forthcoming with your source
OR MY NEW FAVORITE-
non-starter wrote: I found similar postings on Yahoo answers and Wiki answers
You posted to the urban dictionary to support your position...It's called tampering and you're clearly a duplicitous/dishonest POS... Have a nice lie... Oh sorry, I surely meant life.

Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...

[non-starter]

Amused Slew wrote:

The court not only said that recess is strictly defined by the Constitution, but recess appointments are limited to those that "arise" during that period. Presidents have made appointments during recess sessions for years. The practice goes back to at least 1867. In recent years, President Clinton made 139 recess appointments and President Bush made 171. Obama has made 32 recess appointments. President Reagan holds the record with 243 recess appointments. This ruling in essence says that some, if not all of those appointments were unconstitutional unless they happened between sessions of Congress and the openings occurred during that period. The Huffington Post reported, "under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid."

Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.

Asked and answered, slewsie. Next.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...

[Amused Slew]

Amused Slew wrote:

Poor cheap sandy, you like do-nothing senators, huh ??? Of course, teabaggers are all do-nothing, right ???

Here is the Democrat hero of my gay husband Slewsie. This is certainly NOT a do-nothing Senator. This guy did a lot, din't he Slewsie?

On Friday it was revealed that the FBI is investigating Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) for allegedly sleeping with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.

[Time]

Obama is invalidated by the court.

His lame duck term is off to a wonderful start.

[Amused Slew]

It's being appealed, but it's funny EVERY PRESIDENT HAS DONE THE SAME, right ?

[non-starter]

Amused Slew wrote:

It's being appealed, but it's funny EVERY PRESIDENT HAS DONE THE SAME, right ?

Not true, but then reading comprehension was never your strong point.

Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...

[Amused Slew]

The court not only said that recess is strictly defined by the Constitution, but recess appointments are limited to those that "arise" during that period. Presidents have made appointments during recess sessions for years. The practice goes back to at least 1867. In recent years, President Clinton made 139 recess appointments and President Bush made 171. Obama has made 32 recess appointments. President Reagan holds the record with 243 recess appointments. This ruling in essence says that some, if not all of those appointments were unconstitutional unless they happened between sessions of Congress and the openings occurred during that period. The Huffington Post reported, "under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid."

[Smart Liberal]

non-starter wrote:

<quoted text>Not true, but then reading comprehension was never your strong point.
Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...

It is very plain to see if one takes the time and effort to study the topic.

But, I am not a Democrat who thinks laws are merely an inconvenience on my way to a predetermined result.

[non-starter]

Amused Slew wrote:

The court not only said that recess is strictly defined by the Constitution, but recess appointments are limited to those that "arise" during that period. Presidents have made appointments during recess sessions for years. The practice goes back to at least 1867. In recent years, President Clinton made 139 recess appointments and President Bush made 171. Obama has made 32 recess appointments. President Reagan holds the record with 243 recess appointments. This ruling in essence says that some, if not all of those appointments were unconstitutional unless they happened between sessions of Congress and the openings occurred during that period. The Huffington Post reported, "under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid."

Obama and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for this embarrassing political turn of events. It was the Democrats who created the sham pro forma parliamentary procedure to keep the Senate "in session" to prevent former President Bush from making recess appointments. Bush honored the administrative procedure; however Obama charged ahead and ignored the tactic created by his own party.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24233/obama ...

Those appointments were recess appointments, Obama's were not. Too bad your reading comprehension is so poor.

[Amused Slew]

It is very plain to see(comma) if one has a brain and isn't such a dumb, partisan putz, it HERTZ ~!

The court not only said that recess is strictly defined by the Constitution, but recess appointments are limited to those that "arise" during that period. Presidents have made appointments during recess sessions for years. The practice goes back to at least 1867. In recent years, President Clinton made 139 recess appointments and President Bush made 171. Obama has made 32 recess appointments. President Reagan holds the record with 243 recess appointments. This ruling in essence says that some, if not all of those appointments were unconstitutional unless they happened between sessions of Congress and the openings occurred during that period. The Huffington Post reported, "under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid."

[Amused Slew]

Funny, shrub did the same....

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf...

[non-starter]

Amused Slew wrote:

Funny, shrub did the same....
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf...

You should really read your own sources putz....from your link:

On at least three occasions, the Senate has used
procedural tools to prevent the occurrence of a recess of more than three days for the
stated purpose of preventing such appointments: the 2007 Thanksgiving holiday period,10
the period between the first and second sessions of the 110th Congress,11 and the 2008
Presidents Day holiday period.12 In each of these cases, the Senate met in pro forma
sessions (during which no business was to be conducted) every three or four days over the
course of what otherwise would have been a longer Senate recess. The President made
no recess appointments during these periods.

Obama made appointments during the same "pro-forma" periods, Bush did not.

I really do believe it is too late for your reading comprehension, maybe you can start funding a program to help other liberals to overcome their comprehension problems, it is clearly too late for you.

[Amused Slew]

This whole ruling was made because the appointments “took place when the Senate was in an “intrasession” recess, rather than an “intersession” recess.” Good grief. This was a charade by the Republicans.

[redeemer]

Amused Slew wrote:

This whole ruling was made because the appointments “took place when the Senate was in an “intrasession” recess, rather than an “intersession” recess.” Good grief. This was a charade by the Republicans.

We will win this Champ! you're be witnessing another Roadrunner and Coyote moment......Beep-Beep....BOOM!

[Amused Slew]

non-starter wrote:

<quoted text>You should really read your own sources putz....from your link:
On at least three occasions, the Senate has used
procedural tools to prevent the occurrence of a recess of more than three days for the
stated purpose of preventing such appointments: the 2007 Thanksgiving holiday period,10
the period between the first and second sessions of the 110th Congress,11 and the 2008
Presidents Day holiday period.12 In each of these cases, the Senate met in pro forma
sessions (during which no business was to be conducted) every three or four days over the
course of what otherwise would have been a longer Senate recess. The President made
no recess appointments during these periods.
Obama made appointments during the same "pro-forma" periods, Bush did not.
it is too late for your reading comprehension, maybe you can start funding a program to help other liberals to overcome their comprehension problems, it is clearly too late for you.

I really do believe(comma)...

Yeah, a sand fearing moron gives great advice ??? Tell me again, how much you'd like to wager on the appeal ???

[non-starter]

Amused Slew wrote:

<quoted text>I really do believe(comma)...
Yeah, a sand fearing moron gives great advice ??? Tell me again, how much you'd like to wager on the appeal ???

On at least three occasions, the Senate has used
procedural tools to prevent the occurrence of a recess of more than three days for the
stated purpose of preventing such appointments: the 2007 Thanksgiving holiday period,10
the period between the first and second sessions of the 110th Congress,11 and the 2008
Presidents Day holiday period.12 In each of these cases, the Senate met in pro forma
sessions (during which no business was to be conducted) every three or four days over the
course of what otherwise would have been a longer Senate recess. The President made
no recess appointments during these periods.

Obama made appointments during the same "pro-forma" periods, Bush did not.

Make sure you comment on punctuation again, instead of the substance.

[Amused Slew]

It's being appealed, but it's funny EVERY PRESIDENT HAS DONE THE SAME, right ?

[Niether of the Above]

Even Liberal judges think Obama is too liberal!

[Amused Slew]

From the "guy", who misspelled her moniker ?? Gotta be "right" !! LMAOROTU~!