Quote:
Originally Posted by OR82
Actually the right side is simple and clear. The problem being that the Senate was not officially in recess when the appointments were made. Therein lies the problem. Otherwise the court would not have ruled the appointments unconstitutional. Once again, not wanting to get into a political debate. Simply pointing out that by the letter of the law, word for word, what was done was done incorrectly.
|
Is it simple and clear? I read about the case. Most past recess appointments would be illegal under this interpretation... and it is an interpretation albeit one with legal weight. It is subject to being reinterpreted or ignored when it becomes financially and/or politically expedient.
And if you want to get even greyer the case was filed by a corporation in an attempt to protect their financial interests rather than being a case filed because someone was outraged that constitutional law was being broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OR82
Tell you what, let's get away from politics. Here is theoretical scenario for you. A man hits the woman he is with, striking her so hard she falls to the ground. She does not resist. What do you do? Basically you have two options, intervene or do nothing.
|
Okay... lets say the couple were married. And if the man did this because the woman was suffering from psychosis and was on her way home to kill her children? You intervened and held the man for the police. Meanwhile the wife goes home and kills the kids. I mean, if we're going to get hypothetical lets go fullon
