I can't imagine a world where our leader will receive less than 99% of the vote. I would vote for him even if I was running against him! His powerful speech delivery and stern grasp on world and domestic issues will leave us in a warm embrace. I dare say his loving glow is the real reason the globe has been warming.

Why haven't the other faces been removed from Mount Rushmore and replaced with The President's yet? It's obvious their accomplishments pale in the mightiness that is President Obama.

 

-----signature-----

I think Congress is violating the spirit of their charter, but are following the law. I think Obama is breaking the law, but following the spirit of his charter.

I think neither give a rats ass about the letter or spirit of the law and are only concerned with what power they can exercise and what they can get away with.

 

-----signature-----

What congress is doing is as good as a no. Their consent means they have to approve. They don't approve of this appointment.

The power given to this agency is co-opted from congress. That's how these agencies work. Congress must approve the leader. The reason they don't want to approve this one does not magically move it outside of their purview as approvers, nor does the mechanism they are trying to assure their disapproval sticks.

You are trying to argue that they MUST approve of or vote on one of obamas appointments because he should have the power to see the agency run in whatever way he wants and by whomever he wants. That's simply not true. in the same way that scotus can say no to yoru court case by not hearing it, so can congress say no to your appointment by not voting on it.

 

-----signature-----

this is the clue that shows us you dont understand the situation.

In the Supreme Court comparison, the Court votes on whether or not to hear a case. What we dont see is a justice or two using procedural shenanigans so as to not allow the court to decide whether or not to hear the case.

If voting 'no' were really the same thing as refusing to allow a vote, they wouldnt call them different things.

This is a dramatic change in the role and power of Congress. If a law is passed by Congress and signed by the President....does a small minority in congress have the right to nullify the law simply because they dont like it but dont have the votes to overturn it through constitutional means? Is that in the constitution somewhere? Maybe tucked in a footnote?

Obama wouldve blasted Bush in a speech for this but things are different when you have power. You want more power.

 

-----signature-----