Obama has made 29 recess appointments...g.w. bu$h made 171 - reagan 243

[spanone]

so the supreme court is going to determine whether President Obama's are constitutional.

President Obama Has Made Far Fewer Recess Appointments Than Any Recent President

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397589/president-obama-has-made-far-fewer-recess-appointments-than-any-recent-president/

[MrsKirkley]

1. Assuming this fact is brought up in court, he can't lose right?

[BlueCaliDem]

2. Playing devil's advocate, are you?

How kind of you.

But you know that facts don't matter in a court where the judge is god and if he's a Republican appointed judge, partisan politics trump facts.

So yes, in a court where facts matter, President Obama can't lose. Where partisan politics reign supreme, it's still iffy.

I hope I've answered your question adequately even though it wasn't asked in seriousness.

[Nye Bevan]

4. This is the same court that upheld Obamacare as constitutional, correct? (nt)

[BlueCaliDem]

5. The same one that rewrote parts of it that ultimately created a LOT of problems in States, yes. eom

[BlueCaliDem]

3. Everyone (except, apparently, corporate media) knows those documented facts.

But the sorry excuse for a political Party - the Teapublican Party - don't care about facts, documented or otherwise, when it comes to Democrats, especially President Obama.

At the moment, it's not the recess appointments that's at issue. With this case, it's delegitimatizing at any and all costs that black man who's too uppity for his own good and who dares occupy their White House, and they think they've found a loophole in the timing of those recess appointments. No-Lips Mitch claims they weren't in recess at all when the appointments were made, while the President claims they were since they didn't have any work in that period and had all gone home. Republicans they're too clever by half. Let's see how the court will decide the case.

[tritsofme]

6. Except the appointments in question where made while the Senate was not in recess.

I expect the Supreme Court to be near unanimous in striking down these appointments, the only question is the extent that the recess power is gutted for future presidents.

Under the precedent set by the administration, a president could make a recess appointment when the Senate breaks for lunch.

By making such clearly unlawful recess appointments and forcing the issue before the courts, the administration has done harm to future presidents as well.

This was a real bone-headed move by the administration, they should have went nuclear instead of issuing what will likely turn out to be unlawful recess appointments that will forever hobble his successors.