[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by Alex

The pretend outrage on recess appointments is quite the crock. It has hinged for years on a number of things, including the definition of what is meant by recess. If congress isn't in recess, why won't it allow discussion on all of the items before it. If it is in recess, then the appointments are constitutional. Pick one.


On the NDAA, it doesn't smell right. I don't get what the point of it is, and I also don't get why it sailed through both the House and Senate on the way to Obama. It was broadly supported by both parties in both chambers, with only minor amendments along the way. (Senate was 86 for, 13 against, 1 abstention; House was 322 for, 96 against, 13 abstentions)

I'm sure the recess move is just political chess for Obama to set up re-election for 2012. If Obama wanted an effective CFPB, Warren should have gotten the ticket way back before she decided to run for the senate. That's the proof. Instead he's just forcing the republicans' hand making them look worse since they wont "compromise". I really like this paragraph from John Turley's blog a friend linked me.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.