dayman

In the courts opinion and it's one thing I do agree with, substantively no. If you want to talk number of days...then it was 3 where more commonly it has been 5 or 10 or so on the close on end... ...and it was really 20 anyway the 3 just accounts for the gavel dropping w/ nobody in the room every 3 days

Well you are just wrong on that. I can't prove it obviously b/c I don't have a time machine but it's not true. And btw like I said earlier there are many positions that the confirmation process is appropriate for and should be kept, just not 500+ not even close

Well we're getting a bit off topic since I'm just saying let whoever gets the job have an easier time staffing his agencies....but to your point....I suppose you elect the guy who runs saying he doesn't like it?

Then reign in that power, but as long as we're voting for the guy we give the power to do that...let him staff the exec positions a little easier? well IDK if that exists or not but something similar probably does...point being that if something should be eliminated then eliminate it don't just sabotage it...what we have we should try to do well

Then advocate for its deletion? Campaign more specifically and aggressively for getting rid of various departments you don't like? Don't use the appointment process to just !@#$ up something and keep the government that does exist without leadership.

Well she hit all her buzzwords. After being snubbed in her fox news contract apparently by not getting many appearances as she wanted and by not being respected by various producers, glad to see she can at least do some interviews still. Politics just isn't the same without the wild child from the wilderness. I would be interested to know who she thinks they should have picked...Santorum? Moving forward...Santorum again?

I often end up advocating a strong executive. THe entire nation votes for that spot, whoever is in it becomes the commander in chief and head of teh executive, allow him so staff a bit more of his underlings a little easier. They rarely get rejected anyway they're just bothered and delayed....for God's sake he can reign hell fire from the sky on some guy walking around in a desert halfway around the world I think he can pick a director of womens activities in the labor department...

I would argue that Hamilton saw this a great check promoting judicious choices at the time when the number of confirmed positions was less than the number of guys on a football team. And no doubt he imagined the actual process existing was more the check than an actual down vote which he imagined would be extremely rare. But now...it's just a self defeating mechanism and it doesn't promote our republican system in any credible way to have the entire senate confirm the inspector general of the railroad retirement board. Oh and just be clear I'm not saying do away with it I'm say drastically reduce the positions that need a confirmation to those that are important and worthy of the senate's time...so that the senate may get to it and do it rather than having posts just sit around w/ nobody in them officially.

Taking after Bman and just posting stuff that everybody who has read a basic article about this story knows? hehe The greater point of the confirmation process is that it is insane at this point. There is absolutely no reason the senate should have to confirm over 500 positions....and regardless of the party in the WH they should be more deferential and just look a qualification, not put stupid holds on nominees for unrelated reasons, and on and on...I mean at any given point there are countless positions in the government some of which are actually important that have no acting official...if that doesn't show how the entire process is broken (broken by both parties obviously) then idk what does....

As I've said, intrasession recess appointments have happened a bunch. Thus, it is surprising to most people that the opinion says they cannot happen ever, and even intersession recess appointments can only be made when the vacancy arises during that recess. In other words, this is a very surprising ruling. Bman somehow does not understand that this does in fact prevent what many presidents have been doing for a long time, and just pastes articles highlighting what the decision is...which is not something anybody is confused about and thus makes it seem as though he's retarded.

lol Bman you really are stupid. I don't think you understand the posts I've made.

If you aren't safe from a horde of pillagers coming over the hill you aren't free to farm! Never mind that anarchy leads to dictatorship. But since we're talking philosophical government with Takser first let me say DEFINE FREEDOM!!! DEFINE RIGHTS!!! DEFINE WORDS!!! ...and before you freak Tasker...yes....I'm being...well...you get me b/c we're friends

While the idea of a 3rd term is insane, 3rds genera point is correct. He got his second term...cover him forever? It's over...obviously he'll want to remain effective but in political terms...games over. President for 8 years in the bag....you hardy need more cover lover him or hate him

I would just break a pool stick in half and throw it between the candidates and tell them to make it quick

I have read, try reading my posts as this post does nothing to respond to them in any way

A ton of intrasession recess apportionments have happened. Now the court says they shouldn't have. Dating back decades (and even over a century) ..they're all bad now b/c of an appeals court in 1 district.

It's a fair enough decision although it is as Carney suggests quite a surprising one considering intra session recess appointments have happened hundreds of times in the last 100 years and more of our nations history has passed where they happen than when they do not. The court basically said "well, we know they've been going on since the mid-1800s and we know a ton of them have gone on in the 20th century, but they didn't happen for the first 70 or so years so we think that settles the question." Not really a huge deal in the end but it is hilarious the way B-Man thinks this is so "embarrassing" to the administration that the use of executive power in a way that has been recognized for over 150 years and common place for almost a century was suddenly declared unconstitutional.

Not that I disagree that he is bad...but who cares about Relph's money. It's cap space that's important.

lol the AP is biased b/c they cover stories about the President? You click on a WH story and other links on the page are related to WH stories? what are you talking about?

The media the media! lol...get over it ya bunch of cooks....you've all been brainwashed too far in the direction of an overcorrection it's pathetic at this point....on balance "the media" probably a little to the left but get over yourselves thinking every story is lied about by every outlet to make Obama look good and the GOP bad it's as if you don't actually consume any media at all. And like Bird said, O'Reilly, Rush...they all were of the same opinion on this story anyway... The conservative "war on all media (except conservative media)" is the most retarded of all things going ... and that's saying something.....it literally just means "don't listen, trust, or even consider anything outside the bubble"

If the Bills don't find him intriguing, he very well may not make the first round. Sounds about right

By all estimates though, he has a very average arm PLUS an injury to it and he can't run which is all the rage these days (and for good reason)....bleh...still better than fitz though

Personally I want me one dem der running QBs ^^and a strong arm^^

When I watched him, which I didn't often, it seemed like he sort of ripped the ball with reckless abandon into spots he wanted his WRs to be but they weren't. You could view this as him being frustrated with the level of execution around him, or you could view this as him being terrible. Lots of balls seemed to go into the ground and or nowhere...sometimes to the other team.

Rob basically addresses this for me. You can call it a slippery slope but it's really just not trusting the other person, or even thinking the other person is a liar.