Recess Appointments

[Beebs52]

Gaetz creeps me out. Like I said, he's a sacrificial lamb.

[flockofseagulls104]

You automatically assume that whatever the mainstream media reports is a lie.

When I am lied to, blatantly, to my face innumerable times, yes, I assume they are lying to me again.

Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation! Oh, sorry, it is genuine, but don't worry. We'll tell you what's important.

President Biden is sharp as a tack. Well, he can't be prosecuted because he's senile, and we have to replace him as the nominee.

The 2020 election was the most secure election in the history of the world. Anyone who says otherwise is an 'election denier' et al... Emphasize that in EVERY news story that is published. Fulton County GA double counted 3000+ votes, committed 300+ violations of election rules and law, 300,000+ ballot scans are missing, being hidden by election officials. Reams of evidence the Dominion election system is hackable and the administrative password, dvscorp08!, has been available and working since 2008 and has not been changed. Tomns and tons of security vulnerablities and documented and repeatable instances of election fraud that DID occur.

[Weyoun]

You automatically assume that whatever the mainstream media reports is a lie.

When I am lied to, blatantly, to my face innumerable times, yes, I assume they are lying to me again.

Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation! Oh, sorry, it is genuine, but don't worry. We'll tell you what's important.

President Biden is sharp as a tack. Well, he can't be prosecuted because he's senile, and we have to replace him as the nominee.

The 2020 election was the most secure election in the history of the world. Anyone who says otherwise is an 'election denier' et al... Emphasize that in EVERY news story that is published. Fulton County GA double counted 3000+ votes, committed 300+ violations of election rules and law, 300,000+ ballot scans are missing, being hidden by election officials. Reams of evidence the Dominion election system is hackable and the administrative password, dvscorp08!, has been available and working since 2008 and has not been changed. Tomns and tons of security vulnerablities and documented and repeatable instances of election fraud that DID occur.

I’m still waiting for evidence of the 2020 election being stolen. It seems like there is as much evidence for that as there is for the most recent election.

Over the years, you have left these posts, like a rabbit would leave droppings in its cage, but they never added up to any kind of evidence.

Given the sheer amount of mental energy you’ve expended on that particular subject, it seems like you could give three or four examples of actual evidence showing how you are right about it.

On the other hand, two people, at least, have said that Matt Gaetz has sex with teenagers. That seems to be more evidence than you have.

[flockofseagulls104]

I’m still waiting for evidence of the 2020 election being stolen. It seems like there is as much evidence for that as there is for the most recent election.

Over the years, you have left these posts, like a rabbit would leave droppings in its cage, but they never added up to any kind of evidence.

Given the sheer amount of mental energy you’ve expended on that particular subject, it seems like you could give three or four examples of actual evidence showing how you are right about it.

On the other hand, two people, at least, have said that Matt Gaetz has sex with teenagers. That seems to be more evidence than you have.

I can't help that you don't read or comprehend any posts from people you pour out your hatred at. I have presented numerable examples of election fraud that can be reproduced by anyone if they care to make the effort. The examples, by themselves, don't PROVE the election was stolen, but they show that it is not "BASELESS" to question the results, and taken together, acknowledging that these are just needles that have been found in a big haystack, they are more than enough to demonstrate the swamp's proclamation that the election results were unquestionably accurate are WRONG. And they are not only the real election deniers, but truth deniers.

So if I say you murdered my dog, that is more evidence than you have that you didn't. Right?

How did someone like you get to have any responsible position?

[jarnon]

He’s nominated and resigned to get out of the damaging Ethics report. Then, he’ll decline the nomination. That way, the House Ethics info wouldn’t come out in the Senate Judiciary hearing.

There are too many MAGA-tilting lawyers who would make better AGs.

You nailed it, mellytu74!

I had excellent meetings with Senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback - and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition. There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I’ll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General. Trump’s DOJ must be in place and ready on Day 1.

I remain fully committed to see that Donald J. Trump is the most successful President in history. I will forever be honored that President Trump nominated me to lead the Department of Justice and I’m certain he will Save America.

[Weyoun]

All part of Trump’s 4D chess to distract us, so that he can now nominate pedophile-adjacent Jim Jordan to the Justice Department.

[flockofseagulls104]

All part of Trump’s 4D chess to distract us, so that he can now nominate pedophile-adjacent Jim Jordan to the Justice Department.

Gee, I thought trump was a moron. Get your story straight.

[jarnon]

All part of Trump’s 4D chess to distract us, so that he can now nominate pedophile-adjacent Jim Jordan to the Justice Department.

Matt Gaetz, Elise Stefanik, Michael Waltz, Jim Jordan ... Bye-bye, House majority!

[BackInTex]

All part of Trump’s 4D chess to distract us, so that he can now nominate pedophile-adjacent Jim Jordan to the Justice Department.

Matt Gaetz, Elise Stefanik, Michael Waltz, Jim Jordan ... Bye-bye, House majority!

3 of the 4 come from states with Republican governors, 2 from Florida. They certainly will be replaced with Republicans, right?

[mrkelley23]

If I remember correctly, Representatives must be replaced by special election, not by Governor appointment. Probably the same outcome, though, considering how gerrymandered things are these days.

[kroxquo]

If I remember correctly, Representatives must be replaced by special election, not by Governor appointment. Probably the same outcome, though, considering how gerrymandered things are these days.

That is correct. The House requires a special election to fill any vacancies

Senate vacancies are filled several different ways depending on the state. Five states require a special expedited election and the governor is not involved. Thirty-four states have gubernatorial appointment with the appointee serving until the next general election. Eleven states have a gubernatorial appointee who serves until a special, expedited election can be held. In any case, the appointee is free to run for the office.

Nine states require the appointee be of the same party as the prior incumbent.

Sources:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11907
https://ballotpedia.org/Filling_vacanci ... sentatives

[flockofseagulls104]

On the other hand, two people, at least, have said that Matt Gaetz has sex with teenagers. That seems to be more evidence than you have.

At least the left is an equal opportunity serial false accuser.

They don't like you, they get someone to accuse you of sex crimes. Doesn't matter whether you're male or female or whatever gender you make up for yourself.
I wonder what horrible crime they're going to manufacture for Pam Bondi.

It's mind boggling how many times they've gone to this well. It must be because leftists just don't engage in too much sex. And this must be a dry period for them. I mean with all the sex strikes and women (and men pretending they're women, I guess) cutting off all their hair and what not. Do they do that every time something happens they don't like? I don't remember any of that going on when biden stole his election.

[kroxquo]

On the other hand, two people, at least, have said that Matt Gaetz has sex with teenagers. That seems to be more evidence than you have.

At least the left is an equal opportunity serial false accuser.

They don't like you, they get someone to accuse you of sex crimes. Doesn't matter whether you're male or female or whatever gender you make up for yourself.
I wonder what horrible crime they're going to manufacture for Pam Bondi.

It's mind boggling how many times they've gone to this well. It must be because leftists just don't engage in too much sex. And this must be a dry period for them. I mean with all the sex strikes and women (and men pretending they're women, I guess) cutting off all their hair and what not. Do they do that every time something happens they don't like? I don't remember any of that going on when biden stole his election.

It couldn't possibly be that sex crimes are embarrassing for the accuser who has to deal with the trauma not only of reliving the crime but also facing recriminations from people who say she is making the whole thing up. That is why about 2/3 of rapes go unreported.* It is seeing the accused put up for some high office that she feels that she needs to do something.

*https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/fil ... ence_0.pdf

[flockofseagulls104]

On the other hand, two people, at least, have said that Matt Gaetz has sex with teenagers. That seems to be more evidence than you have.

At least the left is an equal opportunity serial false accuser.

They don't like you, they get someone to accuse you of sex crimes. Doesn't matter whether you're male or female or whatever gender you make up for yourself.
I wonder what horrible crime they're going to manufacture for Pam Bondi.

It's mind boggling how many times they've gone to this well. It must be because leftists just don't engage in too much sex. And this must be a dry period for them. I mean with all the sex strikes and women (and men pretending they're women, I guess) cutting off all their hair and what not. Do they do that every time something happens they don't like? I don't remember any of that going on when biden stole his election.

It couldn't possibly be that sex crimes are embarrassing for the accuser who has to deal with the trauma not only of reliving the crime but also facing recriminations from people who say she is making the whole thing up. That is why about 2/3 of rapes go unreported.* It is seeing the accused put up for some high office that she feels that she needs to do something.

*https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/fil ... ence_0.pdf

Right.
Just an amazing coincidence that so many conservatives that are threats to the swamp seem to be sex criminals, yet, upon scrutiny, their accusers stories never add up. Just he said, she said. And the left believes that 'she said' is proof. While two of the major scandals on the dem side had indisputable proof, yet both continued to be heroes of the left.
And people like you never seem to have the same automatic questioning of the motives and character of liberal and leftist politicians that you do for those on the right.

Just as an example, Biden has enough scandals, public innapproriate sexual displays, not to mention alleged diary entries of very innappropriate sexual actions and other unethical practices to fill a large book. But the media conglomerate, if they report on it at all, downplays it and sweeps it under the rug. But unsubstantiated accusations with no evidence against people like Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh are headlines for months, until they don't work, and then they never talk about them again.

[Weyoun]

At least the left is an equal opportunity serial false accuser.

They don't like you, they get someone to accuse you of sex crimes. Doesn't matter whether you're male or female or whatever gender you make up for yourself.
I wonder what horrible crime they're going to manufacture for Pam Bondi.

It's mind boggling how many times they've gone to this well. It must be because leftists just don't engage in too much sex. And this must be a dry period for them. I mean with all the sex strikes and women (and men pretending they're women, I guess) cutting off all their hair and what not. Do they do that every time something happens they don't like? I don't remember any of that going on when biden stole his election.

It couldn't possibly be that sex crimes are embarrassing for the accuser who has to deal with the trauma not only of reliving the crime but also facing recriminations from people who say she is making the whole thing up. That is why about 2/3 of rapes go unreported.* It is seeing the accused put up for some high office that she feels that she needs to do something.

*https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/fil ... ence_0.pdf

Right.
Just an amazing coincidence that so many conservatives that are threats to the swamp seem to be sex criminals, yet, upon scrutiny, their accusers stories never add up. Just he said, she said. And the left believes that 'she said' is proof. While two of the major scandals on the dem side had indisputable proof, yet both continued to be heroes of the left.
And people like you never seem to have the same automatic questioning of the motives and character of liberal and leftist politicians that you do for those on the right.

Just as an example, Biden has enough scandals, public innapproriate sexual displays, not to mention alleged diary entries of very innappropriate sexual actions and other unethical practices to fill a large book. But the media conglomerate, if they report on it at all, downplays it and sweeps it under the rug. But unsubstantiated accusations with no evidence against people like Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh are headlines for months, until they don't work, and then they never talk about them again.

The gist is that the Senate told Gaetz that they know he is a sex criminal and so his nomination died.

I remember Spock, in particular, thinking I was particularly lurid to point that out about Gaetz. What was so lurid pointing that out, months ago, about the guy who wound up becoming the attorney general nomination? Another example of where I am right and you are wrong.

[flockofseagulls104]

It couldn't possibly be that sex crimes are embarrassing for the accuser who has to deal with the trauma not only of reliving the crime but also facing recriminations from people who say she is making the whole thing up. That is why about 2/3 of rapes go unreported.* It is seeing the accused put up for some high office that she feels that she needs to do something.

*https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/fil ... ence_0.pdf

Right.
Just an amazing coincidence that so many conservatives that are threats to the swamp seem to be sex criminals, yet, upon scrutiny, their accusers stories never add up. Just he said, she said. And the left believes that 'she said' is proof. While two of the major scandals on the dem side had indisputable proof, yet both continued to be heroes of the left.
And people like you never seem to have the same automatic questioning of the motives and character of liberal and leftist politicians that you do for those on the right.

Just as an example, Biden has enough scandals, public innapproriate sexual displays, not to mention alleged diary entries of very innappropriate sexual actions and other unethical practices to fill a large book. But the media conglomerate, if they report on it at all, downplays it and sweeps it under the rug. But unsubstantiated accusations with no evidence against people like Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh are headlines for months, until they don't work, and then they never talk about them again.

The gist is that the Senate told Gaetz that they know he is a sex criminal and so his nomination died.

I remember Spock, in particular, thinking I was particularly lurid to point that out about Gaetz. What was so lurid pointing that out, months ago, about the guy who wound up becoming the attorney general nomination? Another example of where I am right and you are wrong.

Where do you get your gist from? The same source that told you not to worry, biden is sharp as a tack? Don't worry, Hunter's laptop is a fake? Kamala Harris is a great candidate?
Last I heard, citizens of this country were innocent until PROVEN guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Show me the proof, ifonly. This gist on this, ifonly, is that a DOJ, that is not a fan of Mr. Gaetz, investigated this issue and chose not to charge him with anything. But I have no idea whether he is guilty of being a sex criminal, AND NEITHER DO YOU.

There were 4 RINO senators, one of whom is actively sabotaging the incoming adminstration, that were hard NOs to Gaetz, even if Jesus himself came down and exonerated Gaetz. I suspect not one of those senators could withstand a focused nomination hearing themselves. They, along with the lunatic democrats, promised to make the hearing one of their patented lurid circuses and drag it on as long as they could. That is the gist that I am getting.

So in what specific way are you right and I wrong? You are a piece of work.

[flockofseagulls104]

Another thing the MSM Conglomerate isn't telling you.



I double checked it. The numbers are accurate.

[jarnon]

Interesting history. According to Wikipedia, President Washington appointed John Rutledge as Chief Justice during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, the Senate rejected his nomination, and Rutledge attempted suicide and resigned. The most recent Chief Justice appointed during a recess was Earl Warren in October 1953; the Senate confirmed him in March 1954. Since 2015, the Senate has held pro forma sessions to prevent Presidents Obama, Trump and Biden from making recess appointments.

[Weyoun]

Another thing the MSM Conglomerate isn't telling you.



I double checked it. The numbers are accurate.

Did any of these involve their entire cabinet?

It’s not random judges. It’s the fact that he wants every one of his nominees to be installed without any sort of screening.

It’s not that we buy some sort of narrative by the media. It’s that we’re not fucking idiots and we can make distinctions.

[Ritterskoop]

I confess to not having paid attention in previous transitions.

Is there some reason the incoming president doesn't wait until Jan. 21 to make their nominations, when they have a friendly Senate (at least in this case, the new group is more likely to approve his nominees)?

It feels like nominating people now (which, how can you nominate when you are not yet sworn in?) means trying to get the outgoing Senators to sign off on your picks. Why not wait until you're in office with a friendlier Congress?

[flockofseagulls104]

It’s that we’re not fucking idiots and we can make distinctions.

You seem to have a very poor track record on making distinctions of any kind. As to the first part... I am on a moratoriam on that.

[jarnon]

I confess to not having paid attention in previous transitions.

Is there some reason the incoming president doesn't wait until Jan. 21 to make their nominations, when they have a friendly Senate (at least in this case, the new group is more likely to approve his nominees)?

It feels like nominating people now (which, how can you nominate when you are not yet sworn in?) means trying to get the outgoing Senators to sign off on your picks. Why not wait until you're in office with a friendlier Congress?

They can start the meetings and staff work that are the first steps in the confirmation process. If a nominee is controversial, they can wait to vote until Jan. 3 when the new Senate takes power. As Gaetz wrote, Trump wants his cabinet in place and ready on Day 1.

[kroxquo]

Another thing the MSM Conglomerate isn't telling you.



I double checked it. The numbers are accurate.

As far as I know (and you can fact check me on this) none of them insisted that the Senate recess itself so that he could name his appointees without advice and consent. He figured out loopholes like this in his first term when he just didn't name anyone to fill vacancies and just name an acting secretary who can serve indefinitely without confirmation.

[mrkelley23]

Another thing the MSM Conglomerate isn't telling you.



I double checked it. The numbers are accurate.

As far as I know (and you can fact check me on this) none of them insisted that the Senate recess itself so that he could name his appointees without advice and consent. He figured out loopholes like this in his first term when he just didn't name anyone to fill vacancies and just name an acting secretary who can serve indefinitely without confirmation.

C'mon, folks. It's only been ten years since the Supreme Court ruled on this. All of us are old enough to remember that recess appointments became a political football under W, when Harry Reid decided to maneuver to block Bush from making recess appointments. Then Obama made three recess appointments to the NLRB (because the Senate had refused to act on any of his nominees, creating a situation where the Board was essentially functionless because of a lack of quorum), the board ruled against a corporation, and they sued. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, and the liberal/moderate wing created (and I do mean created, especially Breyer) the current interpretation. Interestingly, the four conservative justices at the time concurred, although they did so from literalist grounds. They said recess appointments should only be made during actual recesses, and that the vacancy being filled must have occurred during that recess. So all 9 justices at the time, including Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the current policy is the correct one, albeit for different reasons.

More info here, if you care to read it.

This one should not even be close to a discussion. It's astonishing to me how short the memories of the press (and apparently, some people here) are.

[Ritterskoop]

I appreciate the article you linked, MrK, but I am too dumb to get why anyone is being nominated by someone who is not yet in office.

I do get why the current president could nominate someone today, but not the incoming president.

Thanks for your patience.