The Democrats really are pathetic. It's illegal because Bush did it, oh, but wait, it's a common maneuver. ha ha ha Maybe if the losers had stuck around and done their job by passing a clean supplemental, Bush wouldn't have poked 'em in the eye.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/04/kerry_outfoxed_.html
2007-04-05 04:14:15 · 12 answers · asked by Mail J 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because they cannot read the Constitution and do not understand this is a normal legal practice. But since it "feels" bad they say it is bad and unconstitutional (Like Henry did).
For all you liberals who think what Bush did was unconstitutional read Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution and stop making yourself look foolish.
2007-04-05 04:33:34 · answer #1 · answered by jonepemberton 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Complaining approximately recess appointments isn't the area of a single occasion lots because it truly is a political custom. The opposing occasion continuously complains approximately recess appointments. The democrats did it while Bush appointed his, as did the opposing occasion for each president who appointed people throughout the congressional recess in the previous him. So if the republicans are hypocrites for doing it, so are the one you love democrats. you shouldn't assume that historical past began the day you started paying interest. in any different case, you will purely appear as if yet another whiny occasion loyalist.
2016-11-26 19:53:02 · answer #2 · answered by gallogly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say to congress, if you don't like don't go on vacation. They call it a recess, it is vacation. Many have been in office for 3 months and already are taking a vaction. I wish I could go on vacation after 3 months on a new job. I need to wait a year to take vacation. Maybe I should become a Senator.
2007-04-05 04:22:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
WHO watches Faux Snooze? Wasn't that dropped from the air due to low ratings and stupidity? They were so funny, they had Prof. Irwin Corey, Norm Crosby and Yogi Berra writing their scripts (yeah, I did this on purpose).
(What another incompetent crony appointment based on Party favoritism? Gimme a break! When in hell are the Repukes gonna learn?)
2007-04-05 04:31:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Par for the course. Sneaky! We don't want Congress in on anything. The Constitution is just a God Damn piece of paper and so we ignore it and do what the decider decides. Sounds like a dictator to me.
Why is Bush so afraid to put his nominees before Congress? If they are honorable people they will be confirmed if not they will be turned down and he will have to get another one. He must love negative publicity because he keeps doing this stuff.
Democrats aren't realy upset, just acting, we actually like it because it is more fodder for the Democrats to use against Republicans toward a landslide victory next year.
2007-04-05 04:20:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Everyone knows that anything the Republicans do is Illegal. Only the Democrats are allowed to make recess appointments and fire the US attorneys.
2007-04-05 04:17:47 · answer #6 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Sam Fox is well qualified to be Ambassador to Belgium. Kerry was trying to sink his nomination because Fox contributed funds to the swiftboat group who campaigned against Kerry. Very simple - Kerry is vindictive, not a true Senator who does what is best for his country.
2007-04-05 04:18:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
$50,000 for a cushy ambassadorship sounds pretty good. To whom do I make out the check?
2007-04-05 04:30:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fox is a buttboy for the GOP. It's a political favor posting for all his contributions.
2007-04-05 04:22:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Just another Bush failure.Now Belgium won't want to have anything to do with him.
but 2008 and the DEMOCRATIC LANDSLIDE IS GETTING CLOSER EVERYDAY. REJOICE, REJOICE ................
2007-04-05 04:23:08 · answer #10 · answered by Your Teeth or Mine? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋