Rudy,

I don't know what the hell you're gibbering about this time.

Pope Secola was the one who said that there needed to be a vote to undo
a recess appointment. I asked him for a cite from the constitution (or
elsewhere) because as I understoond it, recess appointments expire when
congress comes back into session.

You started ranting going off your nut and AGREE with me, while
pretending I said something different.

You clearly just did a knee jerk reaction (keyword: jerk) and didn't
even bother to try and understand what I wrote, did you?

You're an idiot, Rudy. This is after your argument by endless repetition.

Stuart Grey.



Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:

Pope Secola VI wrote:

But the constitution does give the president the ability to appoint a
judge or diplomat if the Senate is in recess and the person holds the
office until voted on by the next congress. (Thats two years folks)
The vote to remove a recess appointed judge or diplomat is a simple
up or down vote. If there is no vote the person holds office until
there is a vote.

So as long as Republicans can hold the white house and majority of
one in the senate the president can appoint any one he pleases to any
office he pleases.



I know about recess apointments, but I understood them to expire when
congress came back into session. Thus, I believed them to all be up
for a positive vote when congress came back into session, not a vote
to remove.


Once again, you are wrong. If no vote is held, the appointment
TERMINATES at the end of the next session.

Article II, § 2, ¶ 3

The President shall have power to fill up all
Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the
Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire
at the End of their next Session.

Just as current rules mean that a vote might not be held on an
in-session appointment, a vote might conceivably not be held after the
Senate begins its next session, and the appointment will expire.

There is no conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution does not
specify how, or even if, a vote is to be held. If a vote is never held,
for whatever reason, on an in-session appointment, the appointee never
assumes the office; if a vote is never held on a recess appointment, the
appointee is out of the office at the end of the Senate's next session.


Can you point to where this is in the constitution?


See above. That is, if you're talking about the provision for recess
appointments.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about your bizarre belief that the
Constitution dictates that the Senate must abandon its rules in order to
hold a vote...well, Stewie, that belief of your has no basis in the
Constitution.


[snip weird evidence of mental imbalance]