What do U think about the ethics of the US Senate having to hold 30 sec pro-forma sessions in order to prevent

Question

an anti-constitutional President from making recess appointments to long term positions in the government? What about the ethics of the first Imperial President?

ps No rants please; only concise, incisive points that put the situation in an ethical, not partisan- political, perspective. Thanks

My Q is an ethics Q about a current event and insulting the asker, is going to get you reported.

"Recess appointments are not unconstitutional and you calling the President anti-constitutional and an imperialist " True, but this Pres is guilty as charged bec he regularly abuses his prerogatives. The adjectives are fair and Sen Jim Webb who chaired the first pro-forma session made the point to the press leaving the Senate floor. The red state righties are destroying the country. Are you inclined to support them? Why?

I really want the ethics issue addressed if you can. The Q was intentionally provocative but you should be able to see that even if it presses your buttons. I remind you that I asked about the ethics of the Senate and the Pres. So far all I see are insults and political comments in a "law and ethics" category.Shssshh!

"resorting to infantile procedures to subvert his (sic) rights" You jingoists definitely have it backwards--- tell it to people like The Senators on both sides of the political aisle and out here in voterland who think the turkey in the Whitehouse is done. Ha Jah I thought the A you posted prior to this blurb was more rational, but nothing like taking up the challenge to shed more light into the dark minds of the anal-retentive Bushites! Apparently answering what started out as an ethics Q is beyond their comprehension and limited minsets. I can't say I regret exposing such people to the audience. And now lest the mice scurry to the corners with the evidence, I pick the BA ahead of schedule immortalizing the Anonymous Answers for YA posterity.

Just kidding! A better Answer will come along. It has to. Ireally would like an ethics comment by someone with knowledge of ethics unless of course your position is that laws are non-ethical. ( A great Q worth asking, but not here and not now). Later

You A's out there, knowing I can't contest carping ad hominem comments can have your day. I asked my Q and some of you couldn't resist bending it to smaller purposes. & now that I reply egged on by you yo say my Q was a sham. How unethical of you, you would make good Senators and Presidents if that were a job requirement. LOL

Have a good time. Enjoy the Holiday Turkeys (literally and figuratively) LMAO

Answer 1

It's the only smart thing the democratically controlled Congress has done yet.

Answer 2

My question would be what appointments have been put forward and why have they not been given an up or down vote by the Senate? The Senate stone walls nominees they do not like with every means at their disposal. Every nominee deserves an up or down vote period. There should be a defined period for debate followed by a vote. Then they would not need to employ other stalling tactics like the one you reference here. Which by the way is an attempt to keep a post vacant until they get the nominee they want.

Additionally: Recess appointments are not unconstitutional and you calling the President anti-constitutional and an imperialist exposes your own personal motives which do not promote the honest debate you claim to desire.

Edit: I support recess appointments when Congress refuses to accept it's responsibility and act accordingly. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. The President is charged with making appointments. Congress is charged with approving or disapproving those appointments. If they disapprove then another nominee is put forward and process continues. This is not what Congress does though. They draw out the process and in effect cause it stall which then forces a recess appointment by necessity.

Now you Sir or Maam are a hypocrite. Bashing the President and other forthright honest citizens simply because you do not agree with them politically. Kindly go look in the mirrror and get your own mindset into the realm of honesty before you call for others to act in a fair and civilized manner towards you. Feel free to report me if you like for calling you a hypocrite. I will be happy to return the favor by reporting the insulting statement "Red State Righties are destroying this country. I mean really now, are you even reading your own self serving claptrap that you are posting here?

Answer 3

Wow you are delusional aren't you. I see several people who answered your question more than adequately. The answer is simple there is no real unethical behavior in anything you mention here. It is a process. It may not be the most acceptable process in your opinion, but it violates no ethics rules. I suspect based on your comments that have no clue what constitutes real ethics. Your idea is that I will attack whomever I like, but you will be bound different rules when speaking to me. What a crock! The only person exposed here is you. You are indeed a hypocrite. If you want to be treated respectfully then you must first exhibit respect for others, but this concept is obviously beyond your limited comprehension.

BTW: Bryan is a friend of mine and he said to tell you he is still laughing hysterically about the fact that you are so afraid of counter opinion that you blocked him.

Answer 4

Heel Tap; Apparently, you haven't read your own message. You sound like a demented Democrat. For what this Congress has accomplished in its first term, If they were in school they might have achieved a grade of D- if they were lucky. According to the Constitution the President has the power to make appointments and if the Democratic leadership in Congress is resorting to infantile procedures to subvert his rights, they should be ostracized. According to the Constitution , they are elected to represent the people and express the wishes of the people in passing legislation. The sooner these Yo Yos get back to representing their constituents( that includes Republicans and independents not illegal immigrants) the sooner we will have a unified effort to solve problems rather than nit-picking to make political hay.

Answer 5

You have a nerve making a partisan pitch and then telling others not to do likewise. Recess appointments are Constitutional. Exactly what is the tendentious phrase "imperial president" supposed to mean? Like reaio80flyer wrote, read the Constitution. Obama will be acting within his Constitutional mandate to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

Answer 6

Saying something to be constitutional, such as recess appointments, must lead one to see if what the Senate did was constitutional and no doubt it was, so what's the problem? It was not only ethical, but a strong message that partisan politics goes both ways.

Answer 7

If it is within the rules of order, then it would be done, so I assume it is not within the rules of order, and changing the rules would not be possible politically.

But you are free to contact your local Senators and see what can be done if it is important to you.

Answer 8

Go study the Constitution you Bozo.

Answer 9

recess appointmnets are not anti-constitutional, nor are they unconstitutional.