Hussein Obama versus Hussein Obama on recess appointments

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You know, there are lot of self described conservatives who listen Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and take everything they say seriously not realizing that it's entertainment. The angrier conservatives get the more money they stand to make. The GOP saw a way to storm back to prominence in 2010 by riding the talk-radio wave, but it will cost them dearly in the long run.

Rush's objective is not for the GOP to win, because a happy conservative = lower ratings for him and Beck!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: You're way off topic again, Let's get back to square one and the pt. of this vid. Why did Hussein change his mind on recess appointments?

[jblcva]

@luvitluvitbaby Sick reply from a sick Obamamite.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@jblcva you wrote "Sick reply from a sick Obamamite."

This coming for a guy who wrote "luvitluvitbaby loves to suck Obama's dick" and then removed the comment after I responded with an equally childish reply.

You are fucking unbelievable lol!

[luvitluvitbaby]

@jblcva Why do you think he is trying to bring down the country? Why can't youdisagree without being disagreeable? I rarely agreed with George W. Bush's policies, but I never accused him of hating this country or trying to bring it down. I will say this though....

I find it remarkable that so-called conservatives label the President as SOCIALIST for adopting positions they themselves conceived lol!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Are you autistic? I've dealt with this already: "conservatives label the President as SOCIALIST for adopting positions they themselves conceived" Pointing out hypocrisy on another person's side doesn't prove that your side taking the exact same position isn't socialist. If MAN X is a murderer and accuses MAN Y of being a murderer, that doesn't mean MAN Y is suddenly not a murderer because his critic is a hypocrite. Great logic kid!

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector Truth be told President Obama is a center-right conservative. If you compare his record with any modern Republican President he is just as conservative or slightly to the right of them. Everything, from healthcare, to taxes, to national defense, he is a pragmatic moderate who is CENTER-RIGHT!

The Republicans are FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RIGHT right now. This way they can draw a distinction between themselves and the President even if their positions are stupid.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Obama has redistributed more money than any other President, he's continuing slow road to serfdom we've been on for several decades. See my vids at watch?v=MiIwxSbyQwY and watch?v=cHj0ZccWe7E Your argument comes from ignorance. The GOP is hardly far-right, that's a cute generalized talking point. How much did means-tested welfare spending increase while Bush was in the WH?

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You are correct. The GOP is NOT far-right in practice only in rhetoric since 2009!

This is why we see the Presidential candidates fighting like cats over their pat records which were considered conservative 5 years ago but now are considered SOCIALISM i.e. Individual Mandate, Dream Act, Cap and Trade etc. etc.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: You've contradicted yourself again. First the GOP was FAAAAAR right, now they're not. The individual mandate in ObamaCare is unconstitutional. "legal precedent" Now you're back to using abuses of power to sanction more abuses of power. Remember my example about Obama going to war in Libya w/out Congress' consent. Does that make another undeclared war ok? Your strained eisegesis doesn't jive with the Const. Stay on topic or you'll be banned.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Did you just discover Grassley isn't for limited govt and isn't a conservative? Grassley still voted against ObamaCare. Good one!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Already answered this 2 times. The Const. is clear that Congress has "Sessions", but just transitioning from one "Session" to another does not a recess make. If the Senate doesn't officially recess (and it can't for more than 3 days w/out consent of the House) then TR or any other Executive can't recess appoint anyone. The Founders did that to check the power of the Executive. I won't explain this again, so don't pull out this red herring anymore.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector  It says nothing about recess in the CONSTITUTION when they address the three day rule. This pertains to Congress and Congress only. Either house may not be ADJOURNED for more than 3 days without the consent of the other house. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LONG CONGRESS MUST BE ADJOURNED BEFORE A RECESS IS IN EFFECT!

Therefore, we can interpret an adjournment as a RECESS! GOT IT?

GOOD!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: The Senate has to adjourn officially for a recess to be in effect. Using your reasoning, the Executive can declare the Senate in recess when they go home to sleep for a few hours. Hilarious reasoning! And as you mentioned, if the Const. doesn't specifically say what constitutes a "recess" shouldn't one err on the side of caution & wait until the Senate itself officially recesses? You're granting too much power to the Executive.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: I've grown weary of you removing a few dozen comments, as well as your going-to-the-well and making the same arguments over and over. Many times you've left me a comment and I come back only to find it deleted. With that said, your time on this video is done. If you want to quarrel further, bring it to my channel or find another video. That's not negotiable. Those interested can scroll through the archives and witness this moron's silly grandstanding.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector The individual mandate was placed in the bill by Republican Chuck Grassley. The individual Mandate was a CONSERVATIVE IDEA to counter single payer!

Prove Teddy Roosevelt actions were an abuse of power. Just your opinion is not enough I want to see proof!

Keep in mind we know all the action he took, it's official record now and the courts have had over 100 years to denounce it and haven't! Why?

[luvitluvitbaby]

@luvitluvitbaby ....continued

Richard Nixon's healthcare proposal was Wayyyyyy more progressive than anything Obama has proposed. In 1974-1975 Nixon proposed an employer mandate which would have achieved universal healthcare by requiring ALL EMPLOYERS to foot the bill for their employee's private health insurance. This would have become law, but Teddy Kennedy at the time thought he could push and pass single-payer because of the Watergate scandal!

I know this is off topic just sayin...

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: You discovered Richard Nixon was a central-planner too? You're learning all kinds of things today. Again, you're pointing out that many Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats in proposing legislation that increases govt power.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector The Republican party doesn't believe it's own platform. The only reason they pumped up the Tea Party is because they got a temporary push in 2010 because of the healthcare debate. If they ever got back in power fully they would go back to what they were doing before.

If you don't like Democrats or Republicans who do you suppose we support?

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You wrote "Pointing out hypocrisy on another person's side doesn't prove that your side taking the exact same position isn't socialist."

Thanks for pointing out that the Republican party's ideology is rooted in SOCIALISM, and that they're all just a bunch of SOCIALISTS!

You're probably the only person in America with enough chutzpah to expose Ron Paul's SOCIALIST AFFILIATIONS! LOL!

Since Democrats and Republicans are SOCIALISTS who do you suppose we support?

[CesarManiaX]

Recess Appointments by recent Presidents:

Ronald Reagan: 243

George W. Bush: 171

Bill Clinton: 139

George H.W. Bush: 77

Barack Obama: 29

STFU already!

[UTubekookdetector]

CESAR: Apparently, you didn't listen to the video. At the start of the vid, I stated that recess appointments, while the Senate is in "recess" are constitutional. You must be angry though, at me pointing out Hussein et al's inconsistency on these issues. The N.Y. TImes called it a "gimmick" and Hussein called people appointed via this method as "damaged goods." Of course, now that Hussein is doing the recess-appointing, it's "a critical need." Pay attention next time little one.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector the difference is when Walker Bush made appointments BOTH Democrats and Republicans expressed reservations for the nominee's worthiness to hold office! Case in point John Bolton. 2nd they allowed him an up or down vote and it FAILED!

In Obama's case there was no objection with respect to Cordray's worthiness to hold the office. He had more than enough votes for confirmation (53). They blocked a vote because they don't "like" the law or the agency! That's Unconstitutional!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Nice spin. You can complain about the motives all you want but the Const. is clear. The Senate has the duty of advise & consent on Executive nominees, if the Senate recesses, then the Executive can recess appoint people. If Cordray had the votes for nomination, he would've been nominated already, He didn't have the 60 for cloture (apparently he wasn't considered worthy).Cordray's cloture vote FAILED too. The only thing that matters is, does a nominee have the 60 for cloture or not?

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: I could also point out, there are nominees under virtually every President that got between 51-59 votes for cloture & their nomination was dropped or they had to be recess appointed. Your cherry-picked example under Bush was not exactly a seminal event, it's happened before. I don't think you understand the Constitution, try reading it sometime (I even had a screenshot of it in the vid).

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector Tell that to Teddy Roosevelt! On December 7, 1903, at noon the Senate banged the gavel to end a session and start a new session of congress and in between those seconds in took to start a new session REPUBLICAN TEDDY ROOSEVELT recess appointed 160 people to positions in the government!

Cordray WAS considered worthy, no one is disputing is worthiness! They don't like the law that's why they threatened to filibuster.....continued

[luvitluvitbaby]

@luvitluvitbaby ...continued from previous comment

you wrote "The Senate has the duty of advise & consent "

My point exactly, the Senate has FAILED to execute their DUTY by refusing to vote on anyone the President nominates for the post! They were usurping the rights of the executive branch granted under the constitution for "advise and consent" to extort a change in the law that they could not otherwise obtain through proper legislative channels!

That my friend is a severe abuse of power!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Where does it say the Senate has to hold a vote? If the appointee doesn't make it out of committee does that constitute blocking a vote? What part of "consent" do you fail to comprehend? You're just angry that Cordray (and one could insert any nominee for any President) didn't get the 60 for cloture. You're demanding that every nominee make it out of committee (if they don't that's part of the Senate's authority) and get past the cloture vote. YOU (in CAPS FOR EMPHASIS) are clueless.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector what do you think advise and consent means? My understanding of the word "advise" means to give one's opinion, counsel, or direction. Consent means to give one's authorization. In this case a simple yes or no, confirm or reject. If the Congress publicly states that they will refuse to hold a vote on any nominee regardless of who it is then they are refusing to advise and consent which is Unconstitutional!....continued

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: "a simple yes or no, confirm or reject." You've almost figured it out. You're a quick-learner. If a nominee can't a majority in committe & get 60 for cloture, he/she won't be confirmed/ "follow your logic" That was a convoluted mess son. If the same party controls the Senate & WH, most likely all nominees will make it out of committee, whether they get the 60 for cloture, is another story. Next...

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector key phrase "whether they get the 60 for cloture, is another story. Next..."

Now if they don't make it out of cloture don't you think that defeats the whole purpose? The nominee is still left in limbo with no yea or nay vote. It's one thing to get stuck in process. It's entirely another for the Senate to publicly announce they are shirking their Constitutional duty to "advise and consent" by filibustering every nominee regardless of qualifications or character!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: What if they don't even get out of committee? Using your reasoning, one could argue that it defeats the purpose as well. There is no "limbo" concerning nominees (Republicans argued the same thing concerning some of Bush's judicial nominees), they either get confirmed or they don't. They aren't shirking their duties by blocking nominees, they're doing what they can do. E.G. Obama can't order Congress to keep funding Iraq, they can withdraw funds at any time.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Your statement that nominee X isn't confirmed because the opposite party isn't considering their qualifications or character is nothing but a pathetic polemic. I'm sure you can do better than that. I didn't like it when the Dums blocked some of Bush's nominees, but guess what: That's what the Constitution allows & that's the way the Framers set it up. Don't like it? Call for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector you wrote: LUVIT: What if they don't even get out of committee? Using your reasoning, one could argue that it defeats the purpose as well.

This is not rocket science.Republicans have said they will filibuster Obama's nominees thus preventing an up and down vote. An up and down vote constitute's "advise and consent. If Congress is Constitutionally obligated to advise and consent....what do you think knowingly preventing that form happening is?

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Where in the Constitution is this "up and down vote" specifically mentioned and defined? Obviously, if the nominee can't get past the cloture vote (whether the nominee is a Rep or a Dem) then the Senate has declined to consent to the nominee and is telling the President in no uncertain terms that he'll have to recess-appoint that person or pick another nominee. Remember, the GOP complained the same way during the Bush years. Most of Obama's nominees have been confirmed.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: In addition, each chamber can set its own rules, back in the 70s, when the Democrats controlled the Senate the threshold for cloture was lowered to 60. Most legislation & nominees require 60 votes or it doesn't pass. It's that simple, you can complain until you're blue-in-the-face, but it's not going to change unless you get the Senate to change the cloture threshold or amend the Constitution.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You wrote " In addition, each chamber can set its own rules, back in the 70s, "

Your point is irrelevant and here's why.

Yes, Congress may set it's own rules so long as it does NOT violate the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of others or other branches of government.

Think about it, how fair would it be if Dems had a 75-25 Senate majority and then passed a rule nullifying all GOP votes lol?

The Senate CANNOT make rules that nullify executive powers granted under

the Constitution!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Having a difficult time finding the right words? If I remember right, it takes 3/4 to change the rules of the Senate, correct me if I'm wrong. If a party had a 50-seat advantage, I doubt it would matter. Article I Section V: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." You still haven't undercut my argument. You're basically arguing that if the Senate refuses to confirm a nominee or he fails to get the 60 for cloture--that somehow nullifies the Executive? Been there, done that

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector It WOULD make a difference if Dems voted to make it where GOP votes no longer counted AND YOU KNOW IT! You still haven't undercut my argument. If Obama is in such flagrant violation of the Constitution with his actions then where are the Articles of Impeachment at huh?......."crickets".......LO­L!

If Congress refuses an up or down vote on a nominee than they're refusing to "advise and consent" which is their CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY!

It doesn't get more cut and dry than that! :-)

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Still going in circles? Your hypothetical example is nonsense. What if there were 100 GOP Senators and they made a rule that Democrat votes don't count. That's how absurd your argument is. There's no definition of "up and down vote" in the Constitution, I asked you to find it and you declined. You lost that one. Your other argument is dumb too. If a man murders another in cold blood in the police station, yet nobody files charges, does that mean the murder didn't happen? Great logic kid.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector just because there is no presence of the exact phrase up or down vote in the constitution does not mean its not addressed There is no mention of AK-47's or .44 Caliber handguns mentioned in the Constitution either; but most people can reasonably conclude that the Constitution addressed the matter when it gave the right to bear arms. "Advise and consent" is a fancy way of stating the power to say Yes or No. This is not debatable. It is what it is!

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector oh and to add to what I said. Obama doesn't act out of emotional or reckless anger. He conferred with White House council and the State Department before he made this move. Republicans hate Obama more than they hated Clinton, so again I ask....If what Obama did so blatantly violated the Constitution and was such an egregious abuse of power, than why haven't they introduced ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?

I gotta hunch ayy!!!

it's because they have NO CASE and they know it lol!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: "He conferred with WH council... before he made his move." What on earth are you talking about? We're talking about the the why/how of recess appointments and the Senate's role of advise & consent, nothing more.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You wrote "What on earth are you talking about?"

I see someone is lost lol! You see, the President never takes an action unless he is pretty sure he has the legal ground in which to make such a move. You should read up on it. He not only checked with his lawyers, but also the State Department before he moved.

You have been spouting nonsense from the beginning and dodging one important question. Where are the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT if Obama violated the Constitution?

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: "Where are the articles of impeachment." Already answered that. E.G. Only Congress can declare war, therefore the campaign in Libya is illegal. However, just because Congress didn't act, doesn't mean the campaign there is now somehow legal. Perhaps Congress is ok with ceding its authority to the Executive? Now I've answered that twice. "fancy way of stating the power to say yes or no" And if the nominee doesn't make it out of committee or doesn't get the 60 for cloture, that means no.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector Well as long as you say what he's done is unconstitutional and no one who really matters agrees with you than I guess Obama has nothing to worry about lol! Your opinion is your opinion. I happen to think you're GOP fanboy, and you will NEVER find anything the GOP does WRONG. I on the other hand am more objective. I agree with Obama on his recess appointments and healthcare. I disagree with him on NDAA and our involvement in Libya even though strategically it was brilliant.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Again, stay on topic or leave. "GOP fanboy" You haven't watched many of my vids, you're using your own ignorance as proof. Good one. You need to show me where in the Constitution the Senate's "advise & consent" role comprises your "up-and-down vote" (and do so in your next comment). If the nominee doesn't get a majority in committee and then 60 for cloture and then 51+ he/she has been deemed unworthy by the Senate. Good luck. You've utlized bad logic many times.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector I don't need to show you in the Constitution where the Senates's "advise & consent" role compromises the "up or down vote" because I never suggested it did. What I did suggest is that the "DUTY" mandated by the Constitution of the United States to "advise and consent" requires the Senate MUST give an "up or down" vote on Presidential nominations. By using the filibuster they stop the legislative process before it reaches the"up or down" vote threshold. This is a violation.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: You indeed implied it, I have all your comments archived for later use if needed. "this is a violation" And show me where in the Const. that this is a violation considering each chamber can set its own rules. We've been through this once, you keep autistically coming full-circle to the same point over and over. Again, if a nominee doesn't get a majority in committe and then 60 for cloture and then 51+ for confirmation, he/she has been rejected by the Senate.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You wrote "You indeed implied it,"

No you stated it. The statement "advise & consent" role compromises the "up or down vote" doesn't even make sense. I know what I said, and I know what I meant, and I said nothing like that!

What part of advise and consent duty don't you understand? Bottom line they refused to advise and consent. A small minority in the Senate held up confirmation not based on the nominee, but in protest to a law they don't like! That's Unconstitutional!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: I understand it perfectly, the Senate is responsible for all Executive nominations & if that nominee doesn't get confirmed, then the Executive will have to recess appoint when the Senate it out-of-session or nominate someone else. I asked you to find chapter-and-verse evidence to support your ambiguous language in the Const and you could not find it.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector No you don't understand. What I'm saying is if the Senate held a confirmation vote for Richard Cordray and he was defeated then that's fine. Obama would have to find someone else.

But that's not what happened. If a vote were held Cordray would have been confirmed 53-47. A small minority in the Senate blocked the vote not because they disapprove of the nominee but, because they want a change in the LAW!

This is such an egregious abuse of power, and it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: The Senate did hold a vote on Cordray. He was passed out of committee and then failed the cloture vote. That "small minority" wasn't really that small. Bush had to deal with it, so did his dad, so did Clinton and so does Obama. I still haven't seen you cite chapter-and-verse evidence from the Const. showing me where this "up-and-down" vote is implied. A supermajority of Sens. decided the Senate rules & Cordray was adjudged to be not qualified. Sorry!

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector continued....You wrote "I asked you to find chapter-and-verse evidence to support your ambiguous language in the Const and you could not find it."

I'll be happy to provide this for you as soon as you provide me chapter-and-verse evidence in the U.S. Constitution stating that Congress must be adjourned at least three days before a sitting President can consider them in recess and thus make recess appointments. Just sayin..

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector ....continued....let me put it to you this way. What ever rule the Senate makes in this instance is irrelevant to the question at hand. Cloture doesn't matter. The process they're taking doesn't matter. What matters is they FAILED to execute their constitutional duty to advise and consent.

Advise means to give your opinion "yea"or "nay"!

The filibuster STOPS the process before the Senate can give their advice "yea" or nay" It's pretty cut and dry THEY'RE IN VIOLATION!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: "Cloture doesn't matter" Uh, yes it does. You're still using your incorrect conception of "advise & consent" as your main argument. The current parameters for cloture (and thus the use of the filibuster) were passed by a supermajority of Sens. back in the 1970s. Convince a supermajority of Sen.s to change the Senate rules. You seem to be removing a lot of comments, having trouble coming up with something convincing?

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You wrote " Your statement that nominee X isn't confirmed because the opposite party isn't considering their qualifications or character is nothing but a pathetic polemic."

Yeah right lol! That's why the Republicans came out publicly and stated that they have NO PROBLEM with Richard Cordray, they have a problem with the way the agency he is suppose to head is set up as mandated by Dodd-Frank which became LAW in 2010!

They want the law changed before they will confirm!

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector ....continued from previous comment.....

If we were to follow your logic, If Mitt Romney wins the White House, Dems lose the Senate, but take back the House. Minority Leader Reid could then tell President Romney he will refuse to bring to vote any nominee the White House picks for the new Administration until he and VP Christie agree to resign thus making Nancy Pelosi President of the United States lol! I suppose you think that would be Constitutional too right? lol!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Your example about Teddy R. is flawed. You're using an abuse of power to make other abuses of power legitimate. E.G. "We have several Federal Departments of that are unconstitutional, that makes a few more unconstitutional Federal Departments OF kosher." You're still using flawed logic. The parameters for "recess" are clearly spelled out in the Const. If the Senate continued holding pro-forma sessions and never officially recessed, then they're still in session.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector Teddy Roosevelt's action were NOT an abuse of power if there was the congress would have impeached him or filed suit in court. The Constitution does not define when an actual recess begins or ends. Therefore, technically if Congress adjourns for 1 nanosecond the President can interpret that as a RECESS!

Come now... you didn't really think Congress was the only ones who could manipulate Constitutional authority in order to secure a political victory did ya? LOL!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Incorrect, you're assuming Congress has to recess and it doesn't. The Const. is clear that Congress has "sessions" but not that the transition from one session to another constitutes a recess (ask Neal Katyal, Obama's IG what constitutes a "recess"). Each nominee would have to take the oath of office, if you want to split hairs that takes a few minutes, undercutting your silly "nanosecond" argument. It was amusing though. Next...

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector I'm assuming nothing of the sort. There is no clear Constitutional definition that stipulates how long Congress must be adjourned before a recess actually begins! The gentleman's rule is that Congress should be adjourned 3 days or more before the executive branch should consider Congress in recess. Presidents in the past have deviated from that rule so there is precedent. Obama was well within the law here.

I know you want to win the argument but JEEZE LOL!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: "gentlemen's rule" This goes back to something I mentioned last week. Abuses of power by a predecessor don't validate abuses of power by the current Executive. Using your reasoning, since Obama went to Libya w/out Congress' consent, his successor can start a war w/out Congress' permission. Great logic! "no clear constitutional definition" Then you've lost. " I know you want to win" I've had a lot of loons use that point, must be frustration. Later pinhead.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector you keep saying abuse of power. I've already debunked this. If Teddy Roosevelt abused his power then Congress would either censored. impeached him or the courts would have stepped in. They didn't!

Good old Teddy did 160 Recess appointments in between the seconds it took for Congress to bang the gavel to end one session and bang in again to start a new one.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say the President can't do this? huh genius?

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: I see you've come full-circle again. You used this "if they didn't do something, nothing wrong was done" argument before. I responded: "If a man murders another man in the police station and no charges are pressed, does that mean a murder was not committed?" You've used a derivative of this argument several times. Yawn... About 97% of Hussein's nominees have been confirmed. Already dealt with your Teddy R. objection too.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You wrote ""If a man murders another man in the police station and no charges are pressed, does that mean a murder was not committed?"

If they don't have enough evidence against the suspect they presume he or she is innocent and they let him go, bad analogy lol!

97% of Obama's nominees haven't been confirmed. He has had the least number of confirmations by FAR! You dealt with Teddy alright, by saying he abused his power when he obviously didn't. Great Job lol!

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You wrote ""If a man murders another man in the police station and no charges are pressed, does that mean a murder was not committed?"

If they don't have enough evidence against the suspect they presume he or she is innocent and they let him go, bad analogy lol!

97% of Obama's nominees haven't been confirmed. He has had the least number of confirmations by FAR! You dealt with Teddy alright, by saying he abused his power when he obviously didn't. Great Job lol!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Going back & looking at the Const., your point about TR is moot. We've been over this a few times already. You don't understand my analogy: You argued that if Congress doesn't do something, then what Hussein does is ok. I argued if the police did nothing after a murder, that doesn't mean a murder wasn't committed, just the same if Congress doesn't do something to Hussein, that doesn't mean he didn't violate the Const. I'm looking at the % of nominees confirmed, not nominal stats.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector your argument is moot because you have yet to quote any language in the constitution that defines what a RECESS IS and how long Congress must be adjourned before they can be considered in RECESS.

Until you do that, your argument is baseless.

Obama has done 29 recess appointments

Bush did 171

Clinton did 140

Bush 41 did 77

Reagan did 243

[jblcva]

@luvitluvitbaby What's that go to do with this man?

All his people, they all hold the constitution in

contempt. The picture of the loser with his back

to the flag doing the crotch salute. During the

anthem. Every picture tells a story.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: Back to pasting the # of confirmed nominees again? We've been through this too. I'm not against constitutional recess appointments, a President can do that. If the Senate doesn't officially adjourn (and it can't for 3 days or more w/out House consent), then a Pres. can't make a recess appt. This vid isn't necessarily about the constitutionality of Hussein's appts to the NLRB, it's about his contradictory statements on recess appointments.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector JUDY WOODRUFF: "When the U.S. Senate left Washington for its summer recess, it had confirmed 97 of President Obama's judicial appointees, compared to 144 for George W. Bush and 165 for Bill Clinton at this point in their presidencies.

There are currently 91 judicial vacancies, 60 percent of which have nominees awaiting action in the Senate. "

Are you really gonna sit hear and pretend like this Congress has acted in good faith since this President has taken office? lol!

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: The fact remains, the vast majority of Hussein's nominees have been confirmed. Bush had to deal with judicial filibusters too. You're back to your original argument I already refuted: If a nominee can't get out of committee and then get the 60 for cloture, the Senate has dubbed them as "unworthy." Complaining about the Const. won't win this. I deleted your comment about "semen" don't do it agian.

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector You wrote "LUVIT: The fact remains, the vast majority of Hussein's nominees have been confirmed. Bush had to deal with judicial filibusters too."

Are you high?

Obama has had the lowest number of judicial nominees confirmed by far of any modern President.

Rethuglicans said they had no problem with Richard Cordray's character or qualifications. They had a problem with the law. They wanted to force Obama to change it in exchange for bringing his confirmation to a vote.

[UTubekookdetector]

LUVIT: "Richard Cordray" Again, your argument has nothing to do with the Senate's ability to refuse any nominee. Most of Obama's nominees have been confirmed, you're changing it to court nominees now

[luvitluvitbaby]

@UTubekookdetector Regardless of whether they can refuse a candidate or not is irrelevant Obama can do a recess appointment the second Congress adjourns because technically that is a RECESS. There is already legal precedent, END OF STORY!

[fountainherz]

This is probably one of the biggest flip-flopping presidents america has ever had. bush sucked but at least he was consistent.

[SnottyPalmer5678]

Mangey? I am happy that U thinky someone other than my hopey dopey self is damaged goods, Ace.