ACCBoards

Craig Becker was soundly rejected by the Senate as an Obama nominee for the National Labor Relations Board by a vote of 52-43. In spite of the clear message from the Senate, Obama has used the Congressional recess to appoint Becker to the post without confirmation by the Senate.

And you wonder why I think Obama is a danger to the country? He apparently feels that he's omnipotent and can do whatever he wants without regard for established rules and procedures. I'm aware that he can make recess appointments but has any other President EVER appointed a nominee who was found unworthy by the Senate?

Obama is one arrogant so-and-so without respect for anyone or anything except himself.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/...ion-posts/

(03-28-2010 01:08 AM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]Craig Becker was soundly rejected by the Senate as an Obama nominee for the National Labor Relations Board by a vote of 52-43. In spite of the clear message from the Senate, Obama has used the Congressional recess to appoint Becker to the post without confirmation by the Senate.

And you wonder why I think Obama is a danger to the country? He apparently feels that he's omnipotent and can do whatever he wants without regard for established rules and procedures. I'm aware that he can make recess appointments but has any other President EVER appointed a nominee who was found unworthy by the Senate?

Obama is one arrogant so-and-so without respect for anyone or anything except himself.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/...ion-posts/

your guy W was a real 'man of the people'

too bad there are term limits.

(03-28-2010 01:08 AM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]Craig Becker was soundly rejected by the Senate as an Obama nominee for the National Labor Relations Board by a vote of 52-43. In spite of the clear message from the Senate, Obama has used the Congressional recess to appoint Becker to the post without confirmation by the Senate.

And you wonder why I think Obama is a danger to the country? He apparently feels that he's omnipotent and can do whatever he wants without regard for established rules and procedures. I'm aware that he can make recess appointments but has any other President EVER appointed a nominee who was found unworthy by the Senate?

Obama is one arrogant so-and-so without respect for anyone or anything except himself.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/...ion-posts/

The use of recess appointments has been used to get around those pesky senators since the dawn of the republic. Dubya used 'em quite a bit. From Wiki:

Quote:President George W. Bush appointed two judges during Senate recesses, William Pryor and Charles Pickering to U.S. courts of appeals after their nominations were filibustered by Senate Democrats. Judge Pickering, who Bush appointed to the Fifth Circuit, withdrew his name from consideration for renomination and retired when his recess appointment expired. Judge Pryor was subsequently confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment to the Eleventh Circuit. In two terms, Bush made 171 recess appointments.

On August 1, 2005, Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton, to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations. Bolton had also been the subject of a Senate filibuster. The filibuster concerned documents that the White House refused to release, which Democrats suggested may contain proof of Bolton's abusive treatment and coercion of staff members or of his improper use of National Security Agency communications intercepts regarding U.S. citizens. Having failed to win Senate confirmation, he resigned his office in December 2006 concurrently with the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

On April 4, 2007, during the Easter recess of Congress, Bush announced three recess appointments. The first was Sam Fox to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. Fox's appointment had been thwarted in Congress because he had donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign, a group whose advertisements many Democrats blamed for John Kerry's loss.

The second appointment announced that day was Susan Dudley to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget.

The third recess appointment on April 4 was Andrew G. Biggs to serve as Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Biggs was investigated by Senate Democrats in 2005, while serving as Assistant Commissioner for the Social Security Administration, concerning whether he violated a federal ban on congressional lobbying by federal employees when he edited the prepared testimony for a lobbyist appearing before a Democratic Policy Committee Social Security hearing as alleged by John Stanton in Congress Daily.

I suppose you will argue that losing a 52-43 vote represents being "found unworthy" while failing to get past the Senate because of a filibuster is simply getting caught up in a stupid procedural rule. I couldn't agree more: let's write Congress and tell them to get rid of the filibuster.

(03-28-2010 04:55 AM)Tenmile Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose you will argue that losing a 52-43 vote represents being "found unworthy" while failing to get past the Senate because of a filibuster is simply getting caught up in a stupid procedural rule. I couldn't agree more: let's write Congress and tell them to get rid of the filibuster.

Ummmmm. I would save your postage stamp until sometime after the Spring Break. Seems Nancy might be too busy for musings from the public minions. I know what Nancy wants for HER 70th B'day. Wooooo Wooo. You go girl.

The press may be completely incapable of doing their job objective but damn if they can't snap a suggestive photo.

yourconditionerdrivesmewildloller

There were quite a few Democrats that voted against this confirmation. Does anyone know their objections?

(03-29-2010 12:22 PM)BornAJacket Wrote: [ -> ]There were quite a few Democrats that voted against this confirmation. Does anyone know their objections?

Not specifically but it's likely to do with his ties to organized labor and unions. His union ties pretty well removes any idea that he can be impartial in his judgments.

IMO, Obama has stepped over the line by using a recess appointment to put his man on the NLRB after the Senate has clearly rejected him. That is telling the Senate that "your advice and CONSENT means squat to me and I'll damned well do whatever I please".

I hope this upsets the Senate and results in a rebuke to Obama by somehow removing Becker from the board.

All Hail Caesar!

Just so we're clear, he "lost" by getting 52 votes.

Quote:The GOP was joined by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in defeating President Obama's nominee, Craig Becker, by a vote of 52-33. The 52 votes were in favor of Becker, while the 33 were in opposition. In today's Senate, that's enough to block a nominee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09...55814.html

(03-29-2010 02:56 PM)blueterp Wrote: [ -> ]Just so we're clear, he "lost" by getting 52 votes.

Quote:The GOP was joined by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in defeating President Obama's nominee, Craig Becker, by a vote of 52-33. The 52 votes were in favor of Becker, while the 33 were in opposition. In today's Senate, [b]that's enough to block a nominee[/b].

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09...55814.html

Apparently not.

(03-29-2010 02:56 PM)blueterp Wrote: [ -> ]Just so we're clear, he "lost" by getting 52 votes.

Quote:The GOP was joined by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in defeating President Obama's nominee, Craig Becker, by a vote of 52-33. The 52 votes were in favor of Becker, while the 33 were in opposition. In today's Senate, that's enough to block a nominee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09...55814.html

For the record, the votes against were 43.... NOT 33.

Regardless, the fact that Becker WAS NOT confirmed by the Senate should eliminate him from consideration. However, Obama has to be a union toady so he uses an underhanded maneuver to thwart the will of the Senate. I hope they slap him down for his arrogance.

(03-28-2010 01:08 AM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]Craig Becker was soundly rejected by the Senate as an Obama nominee for the National Labor Relations Board by a vote of 52-43. In spite of the clear message from the Senate, Obama has used the Congressional recess to appoint Becker to the post without confirmation by the Senate.

FAIL

Quote:And you wonder why I think Obama is a danger to the country?

actually, it's on my list of "Things I don't Wonder about in the Least"

(03-29-2010 04:40 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]Sure it has been used before, but weren't most of Bush's recess appointments for folks who could not get a vote? Here a vote was had, the person rejected, and Obama appoints him anyway. I see a difference in the fact pattern between appointing a Senate reject and appointing a person who had the votes but could not get an up or down because of Senate rules.

If you cannot see a difference in the two situations, you may be willfully disregarding the fact pattern for whatever reason.

A vote against cloture =/= rejection. Becker couldnt get an up or down vote either, if he had, he would have been confirmed.

So basically it's the exact same thing that W did over 100 times as a vote against cloture is a fillibuster technique.

Does anybody expect Stampy to man up and admit this?

(03-29-2010 04:55 PM)blueterp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2010 04:40 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]Sure it has been used before, but weren't most of Bush's recess appointments for folks who could not get a vote? Here a vote was had, the person rejected, and Obama appoints him anyway. I see a difference in the fact pattern between appointing a Senate reject and appointing a person who had the votes but could not get an up or down because of Senate rules.

If you cannot see a difference in the two situations, you may be willfully disregarding the fact pattern for whatever reason.

A vote against cloture =/= rejection. Becker couldnt get an up or down vote either, if he had, he would have been confirmed.

I was relying on the wording of a prior post which did not say this was a cloture vote, but you are correct getting 52 votes for cloture is the same as a confirmation vote. Glad you are around to sort these facts out...

I deleted my erroneous conclusion.

(03-29-2010 05:14 PM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]So basically it's the exact same thing that W did over 100 times as a vote against cloture is a fillibuster technique.

Does anybody expect Stampy to man up and admit this?

Admit WHAT? That Becker was refused an up or down vote by the EXACT same techniques that the Democrats used to thwart Bush nominees?

With a clear Democrat majority in the Senate, WHY wasn't Becker given the vote? Because it's clear that some Democrats object to a UNION TOADY being appointed to the NLRB.... that's why. Becker is CLEARLY in the pocket of the unions and no one with his background should EVER sit on a board making decisions that effect unions. His BIAS is plain to see by anyone who cares to look.

Obama APOLOGISTS have a LOT to apologize for. You'll get your comeuppance in November and so will BHO. Americans aren't buying his brand of socialism and big government. Too bad they didn't think about that in 2008.

(03-29-2010 07:14 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2010 05:14 PM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]So basically it's the exact same thing that W did over 100 times as a vote against cloture is a fillibuster technique.

Does anybody expect Stampy to man up and admit this?

Admit WHAT? That Becker was refused an up or down vote by the EXACT same techniques that the Democrats used to thwart Bush nominees?

With a clear Democrat majority in the Senate, WHY wasn't Becker given the vote? Because it's clear that some Democrats object to a UNION TOADY being appointed to the NLRB.... that's why. Becker is CLEARLY in the pocket of the unions and no one with his background should EVER sit on a board making decisions that effect unions. His BIAS is plain to see by anyone who cares to look.

Obama APOLOGISTS have a LOT to apologize for. You'll get your comeuppance in November and so will BHO. Americans aren't buying his brand of socialism and big government. Too bad they didn't think about that in 2008.

I haved looked on several sources. The vote was 52-33, not 52-43.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=...cbbf06dc4f

Your ability to take the exact same set of circumstances and to cast the Democrats as the evil minions of Satan in each case for doing the same thing as the Pubs when the roles are reversed is truly a sight to behold.

You never fail to disappoint.

(03-29-2010 05:28 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2010 04:55 PM)blueterp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2010 04:40 PM)Tagterp Wrote: [ -> ]Sure it has been used before, but weren't most of Bush's recess appointments for folks who could not get a vote? Here a vote was had, the person rejected, and Obama appoints him anyway. I see a difference in the fact pattern between appointing a Senate reject and appointing a person who had the votes but could not get an up or down because of Senate rules.

If you cannot see a difference in the two situations, you may be willfully disregarding the fact pattern for whatever reason.

A vote against cloture =/= rejection. Becker couldnt get an up or down vote either, if he had, he would have been confirmed.

I was relying on the wording of a prior post which did not say this was a cloture vote, but you are correct getting 52 votes for cloture is the same as a confirmation vote. Glad you are around to sort these facts out...

I deleted my erroneous conclusion.

I deleted as well for the same reason.

Apparently if the Democrats refused to provide Bush with sufficient votes it was OK for him to overcome this by recess appointments over 100 times.

But if Obama does it ONE TIME the conservatives on this board call him a cheat.

I guess that makes Bush a cheat x 100, right?

Well, it is just Stampy. No need to paint Tag, PackLT and others as intellectually dishonest when they have retracted their comments.

(03-29-2010 08:26 PM)Tenmile Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently if the Democrats refused to provide Bush with sufficient votes it was OK for him to overcome this by recess appointments over 100 times.

But if Obama does it ONE TIME the conservatives on this board call him a cheat.

I guess that makes Bush a cheat x 100, right?

ONE time? Can you count to 15? And this was only a beginning for Obama.

(03-29-2010 08:31 PM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, it is just Stampy. No need to paint Tag, PackLT and others as intellectually dishonest when they have retracted their comments.

When you defend a nominee who clearly has excess PARTISAN baggage as a UNION LACKEY, you call someone else intellectually dishonest at your own peril; ESPECIALLY when you ignore the fact that I have only criticized ONE of Obama's 15 recess appointments.

As an Obama apologist, you have no choice but to be dishonest, intellectually and otherwise.

(03-29-2010 09:10 PM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2010 08:26 PM)Tenmile Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently if the Democrats refused to provide Bush with sufficient votes it was OK for him to overcome this by recess appointments over 100 times.

But if Obama does it ONE TIME the conservatives on this board call him a cheat.

I guess that makes Bush a cheat x 100, right?

ONE time? Can you count to 15? And this was only a beginning for Obama.

Oh? Forgive me for not keeping a scorecard on Obama's sins. I was counting on you to do that. And I guess I can count on your math: 15 > 100.

Stampy starts this thread about how Obama is taking unprecedented actions to thwart the will of the people.

Then it is pointed out to him that this situation is really no different than the over 100 times Bush used the same technique.

Of course, instead of having the nads to man up and admit he was wrong about his main point, Stampy launches into tirades accusing others that pointed out that his original point was BS of being "Obama apologists".

(03-30-2010 07:22 AM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]Stampy starts this thread about how Obama is taking unprecedented actions to thwart the will of the people.

Then it is pointed out to him that this situation is really no different than the over 100 times Bush used the same technique.

Of course, instead of having the nads to man up and admit he was wrong about his main point, Stampy launches into tirades accusing others that pointed out that his original point was BS of being "Obama apologists".

ANY similarity between my original post and the steamy pile of road apples above is purely coincidental. "The will of the people" is not mentioned at all and I pointed out that Obama has used a recess appointment to place a man in a position AFTER the Senate rejected him. His cloture vote showed that there was no way the Senate was going to confirm him.

BTW, YOU are the supreme Obama apologist but others here are close.