Finally the Senate and the Democrats can at least prevent the President from doing something in an underhanded way.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/11/19/reid_to_convene_senate_to_prevent_recess_appointments/
"....Reid asked a few Democractic Senators who plan to be close to the capital during the holidays-Jim Webb/Virginia, Byron Dorgen/N.D., and Jack Reed/R.I.-to gavel open and shut the Senate for 2 days each week."
Do you think recess appointments should be abolished unless in an emergency situation?
2007-11-20 14:17:11 · 17 answers · asked by Kelly B 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I was glad to hear that the Democrats are finally doing something to take away Bush's streams of victories and non-defeats.
And it is a sign of how the "Uniter" has created (or at least helped to create) one of the most divisive political environments in Washington in recent history.
2007-11-21 09:27:49 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Bad Day 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not underhanded...it's underhanded to make recess appointments. All the Democrats are doing is being there to prevent the manipulation of the system...If they are there during holiday (and giving up time with their families), it's only to say "Congress is in session" ...Don't be a TROLL
Some of these answers are just plain ignorant...the President, any president, does not have the right to appoint people without Congressional approval....the issue of recess appointments was created for emergencies only and not to be used as a way to get around the law...IF HE HAS TO GET APPROVAL, THEN HE SHOULD APPOINT PEOPLE THAT AREN'T FROM THE PAT ROBERTSON UNIVERSITY
2007-11-20 22:36:24 · answer #2 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Interesting list of names.
Byron..I'm going to regulate the Internet..Dorgan
Jim..armed and dangerous and wants to be VP...Webb
Jack...sponsored 164 bills since Jan 21, 1997, of which 139 haven't made it out of committee (Poor) and 5 were successfully enacted...Reed
Oh boy, we're in good hands
2007-11-20 22:35:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
What I find sad is that the Senate Majority leader has to result to underhanded scheduling to try and block the President.
Why not open then Senate and do some actual work for a change? They work three days out of the week for 7 months of the year. Yeah, like they need a holiday break.
The whole lot should be voted out of their offices.
2007-11-20 22:23:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
If Bush insists on acting in bad faith, its the only way to deal with him. Good for Ried and the Democratic Senate !
I am proud of them,
2007-11-20 22:42:57 · answer #5 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it would be better to abolish unethical presidents. Than to make a rule that will be broken
2007-11-20 23:13:07 · answer #6 · answered by whirling W dervish 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Reid is a complete moron. The Democrats could not find their A** with both hands and directions.
2007-11-20 22:32:37 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Absolutely. Heck he even did it during his rubber stamp congress. More recess appointments then the rest of the presidents combined.
He is good at breaking records this president Bush I will give him that!
2007-11-20 22:20:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
No, I think blocking presidential appointments without any reason other than partisan politics should be abolished. If the president wants to appoint, it is Congress' job to determine if they are QUALIFIED, not if they are liberal enough.
Ford...and as I said, it is Congress' job to determine QUALIFICATION for the job...not PARTISANSHIP! Congress has blocked more appointments than any Congress in history, and they have even used fillibuster to do it, which judicial appointments are not even a defined use for fillibuster. It is not Bush who has been overstepping...it is Congress.
2007-11-20 22:24:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
There is nothing underhanded about recessed appointments. But what Reid is doing is underhanded.
2007-11-20 22:24:12 · answer #10 · answered by mfitz67 2 · 2⤊ 6⤋