The Times On Obama's Recess Appointments - Republicans Made Him Do It

The NY Times pretends to examine the legal and Constitutional issues surrounding Obama's recent recess appointments.  They include this "the devil made him do it" howler in the second paragraph:

Senate Republicans had been using procedural rules and filibusters to block or delay the confirmation of nearly 200 agency nominations, leaving vital positions vacant and neutralizing agencies they did not like. That compelled Mr. Obama to escalate matters further on Wednesday, making recess appointments even though the Senate was technically not in recess.

Obama was compelled!  The most powerful man in the world was powerless on this point.

The Times extensive research did not include a review of their own writing on this topic. For example, we are offered the assurance that, even though Harry Reid invented the pro forma sesion in order to thwart Bush during 2007/08, it has only become a problem lately:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, began using pro forma sessions, lasting just seconds, in late 2007 to keep the Senate nominally in session and prevent President George W. Bush from making recess appointments.

...The White House and Senate Democrats say the experiences of Mr. Obama’s nominees had become intolerable. In the two years that Mr. Bush had to contend with a Democratic Senate, 740 of his 981 nominees for civilian positions were confirmed, a rate of 75 percent. During the 112th Congress, 285 of Mr. Obama’s 503 civilian nominees have been confirmed, or 57 percent, according to Senate statistics.

So the process has only gone to hades recently.  Hmm - back in the spring of 2008 the Times editors deplored Bush's intransigence in simply refusing to give Harry Reid what he wanted and had this to say about the state of the government:

Unhappily for the country, we have learned that Mr. Bush has no idea when standing on principle becomes blind stubbornness and then destructive obsession. So it goes with his choice to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury.

...Mr. Bradbury is widely viewed on both sides of the aisle as such a toxic choice that he will never be confirmed. The Senate has already refused to do so twice. Still, Mr. Bush clings to this lost cause, snarling the confirmation process for hundreds of nominees and crippling parts of the federal regulatory apparatus.

See, back then it was Bush that was snarling the process.  Fortunately, the ever-reasonable Harry Reid had a plan:

When Mr. Bush refused to withdraw the Bradbury nomination, the Senate’s Democratic leaders decided to stop processing other controversial nominations. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, twice offered to resume confirmations and compromise on candidates if Mr. Bush withdrew Mr. Bradbury — and forwarded the names of six Democrats chosen for bipartisan panels like the Federal Election Commission. The White House refused, and Mr. Reid took to keeping the Senate in pro forma sessions during vacations to prevent Mr. Bush from making a recess appointment of Mr. Bradbury and other objectionable choices.

At this point, according to a review by Politico.com, the election commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the National Labor Relations Board do not have enough members to do their jobs. Scores of federal judgeships are vacant. The Council of Economic Advisers is down to one adviser.

This is bad for the country. Mr. Bush should withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s nomination, replace him at the Justice Department with someone committed to upholding the law and take Mr. Reid’s offer. The president’s hyperpartisanship and my-way-or-the-highway arrogance is now close to paralyzing his own administration.

If only Bush had given the Democrats what they wanted the near-paralysis of his Adminstration could have been avoided.  Of course, today if the Senate would agree to amend the Dodd-Frank bill, Obama's troubles would pass.  Or would they?  Even the Times manages to detect a whiff of politics in Obama's "compulsion":

Mr. Reid has stayed silent on Mr. Obama’s decision. Privately, Senate Democratic aides said he backed it as part of a broader effort by Mr. Obama to confront Republicans in Congress. One of the parliamentary minds behind the pro forma session said in an interview that Democrats knew from the beginning that it might be challenged.

The move will almost certainly face legal scrutiny.

John Elwood, a senior lawyer in the Bush administration, said that any business affected by a regulation under Mr. Cordray or a decision by the labor relations board could have legal standing to challenge the action as illegitimate, because the plaintiff could claim that it was directed by officials not lawfully appointed.

If the president had flouted the pro forma sessions to name someone to a less divisive position, like the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides internal legal advice, virtually no one outside the administration would be affected by the move, Mr. Elwood said. Instead, Mr. Obama rolled the dice, setting off a legal process that could last years.

“It’s a high-roller move,” he said.

 The Times does present a bit of the Republican spin:

Republicans say the White House and Senate Democrats share the blame. Democratic committee leaders are responsible for the scores of nominees that have not gotten through their panels, said Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Mr. McConnell was prepared to clear a long list of presidential nominees before the holiday break if the president had offered his assurance that he would not ram through recess appointments, Mr. Stewart added. Mr. Obama did not.

How many are stuck in Democrat-controlled committees?

Republicans have responded with stalling tactics that have left 74 nominees pending consideration on the Senate floor and an additional 107 bottled up in committees, many of them for economic posts or to run initiatives that Republicans fiercely oppose.

Obama chose this fight and now the Times is flacking for him.  Surprise!

MEMORY LANE:  Let's reprise the Times exultation when Harry Reid brought the pro forma genie out of the bottle:

Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments

By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — Who says the Senate cannot act quickly? It conducted a full day’s business in less than 30 seconds on Tuesday.

Of course, there was no real business to conduct. But fearing that President Bush would again use a Congressional recess to install disputed executive branch appointees without Senate confirmation, Democrats convened the Senate for the first of four microsessions to be held during the holiday break, precisely to thwart such an end run.

“I am glad to see the leadership stepped up here,” said Jim Webb, the junior senator from Virginia, called upon by the majority to open the Senate with a skeleton staff for the express purpose of immediately closing it down.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, chose to schedule the so-called pro forma sessions because Mr. Bush took advantage of past recesses to install nominees including John R. Bolton, as ambassador to the United Nations, and, most recently, Sam Fox, a donor to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as ambassador to Belgium. This time, Democrats were particularly suspicious of plans to appoint as surgeon general a nominee they oppose.

“This is the first time that pro formas have been used to block recess appointments,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid.

...

But Democrats appear dead set against allowing any more recess appointees, who would serve until the end of the next Congressional session — that is, essentially through the end of Mr. Bush’s term. So unless there is an agreement between the White House and Democrats, it appears likely the Senate will not be in formal recess any time through 2008.

And that might mean more trips for Mr. Webb from his home in nearby Northern Virginia to preside in a nearly empty Capitol.

“It is not very fun going through the traffic,” he said, “but I don’t mind. I think this is important.”

 

 

Comments

[Melinda Romanoff]

The Geraldine Defense.

Good one, I didn't see that coming.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Geraldine faces Ali.

[Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA]

How long have the NLRB guys and the Consumer guy been cooling their heels?
And...isn't the Senate under Dem control? Have there been hearings, etc?

[Captain Hate]

The funny thing in this whole snafu is that the quislings in the Times act like this douchetool Cordray is essential to improving peoples' lives. If anything it will make the prospects for job creation less.

[Jane]

Wow the local coverage of the debate is all anti Romney and they say it is now35% Romney, 20% Paul and something like 15% Gungrich.

[Cecil Turner]

I likes me a good constitutional crisis. The argument is usually illuminating on balance of powers, and it's the best form of check on the various branches.

The MSM cheerleading (on whichever side the Dems find themselves at the moment) is a bit tiresome, though.

[Jane]

OWS arrests at the debate,

[Jane]

Holy cow, Andy heller is whining that the candidates said something at his expense. The media is so stupid.

[Comanche Voter]

Consistency is for small minds. And the Times gave all its small minds a day off when the one remaining employee wrote this piece of bilge.

[Benjamin Franklin]

ONLY the intellectually curious are invited to read, and that's a precious few.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n01/jackson-lears/a-history-of-disappointment

[narciso]

It's the kind of thing that would make Winston Smith con sume a whole barrel of '
victory gin'

[Jane]

Wow, Andy Hiller is bashing Romney again and incredibly says he says he won but maybe something bad was said when he wasn't listening. He so transparently hates Romney.

[MarkO]

Letting the Progressives set the agenda in these debates is insane.

[Jane]

That was huntsman in third at 11% not Gingrich

[pagar]

"How long have the NLRB guys and the Consumer guy been cooling their heels?"

"The Senate committee handling the nominations of Democrats Sharon Block and Richard Griffin to the NLRB never received the required paperwork from the two nominees. The president submitted the nominations to the Senate on December 15,"

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/06/obamas-nlrb-recess-appointments-circumvent-background-checks/

Somewhere I read they may not have have paid their taxes, but that may just be based on the fact that they are Democrats.
-------------------------------------------
I think I'm going to have to hire a reader, was gone yesterday. Coming back to JOM, I'm about 600 comments behind before I get started.

[hit and run]

pagar:
I think I'm going to have to hire a reader, was gone yesterday. Coming back to JOM, I'm about 600 comments behind before I get started.

Heh,good luck,pagar. I tried that in 2007.

[Captain Hate]

Has McConnell made the point that the nominated knuckleheads never provided the required paperwork? That's pretty important and for that not to be part of the discussion that the likes of Debbie Weeblehead Schultz is pushing is extremely poor political strategy. If Mitch did so and the MFM just isn't reporting it, I withdraw any criticism but Rience Priebus didn't make that point today on FNS iirc. The Repubs have to start getting their act together on how to respond to this garbage.

[Captain Hate]

And for the record I think all recess appointments are cowardly and Bush doubtlessly tried to do his at the advice of THE ARCHITECT giving him worthless counsel. If the Senate is being obstructionist, use that message going forward. The worst was Slick ramming through Bill Lann Lee, who must have been a terrible choice because Jesse Jackson supported him; at least I assume he supported him because that was reported because I can't understand a single thing that comes out of his pie hole with its hopelessly garbled syntax.

[narciso]

Oh, certainly, with regards to the pinata to the community organizers, I found a consent
Decree on the LAPD, signed off by the same crew back in 1997, except Thomas Perez has tken the Bill Lann Lee slot, and Steadman has
Reno's chair, even when we had the majority,
'My friends' and his peanut gallery, was slipping a shiv down our back.

[pagar]

The Income tax thing with the Obama regime appointees.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/are-obamas-democrat-nlrb-appointees-tax-evaders/296951

[Gmax]

reposting from much earlier today cuz it will be read by some who will not wade 400 + posts in and its tonic for the soul:

Buried within the last link narc posted ( I almost never read AoS so thanks for that ) I find this little Buried within the last link narc posted ( I almost never read AoS so thanks for that ) I find this little crumb of wisdom from none other than the sawed off NYT polling "guru":

(on the Senate) analyst Nate Silver, "it’s within the realm of possibility that they could gain a net of thirteen seats."

Yes, yes it is. Lets work to make it happen and change America back to something we recognize.

[Ignatz]

Interesting and depressing story on how private practice doctors are being bankrupted, almost wholly by Medicare.
Thanks, DC.

[Ignatz]

Pat Michaels has an excellent piece on just how bad the solar and wind energy sectors are and points out that with the vast new gas deposits being found they will probably never be competitive.

[Captain Hate]

Yes Iggy; the anti-fracking is being driven by people that can see the end of the green energy shell game.

[Ignatz]

China's "demographic tsunami" promises to make China old before it's rich.

[Threadkiller]

Tom McClintock has picked his favorite of the GOP field.

http://www.tommcclintock.com/media/audio/1109

Very interesting.

[narciso]

Well we know the ovjections to the Canadian pipeline, is in part driven by Arabian interests, those on the peninsula as well
as the emirates,

[Benjamin Franklin]

Go for it, Threadkillah. DoT is AWOL.

[Threadkiller]

DoT, the bats are prairie doggin' at this moment.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/the-mccreery-v-somerville-funeral-maskell-and-gray-to-attend-minor-v-happersett-to-preside/

"Grab a cup of java, put your thinking caps on, kick back and relax. We are going to be here for a while. Focus. Below, you will be privy to a true and proper revision of United States Supreme Court history.

One of the foundational building blocks for Justice Gray’s opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the case, McCreery v. Somerville, 22 US 354 (1824), to which Gray made a fatally flawed assumption based upon his failure to acknowledge a judicially recognized misquote. Then, Justice Gray compounded his initial error by creating a separately deceptive quotation.

These errors completely sully his analysis of McCreery. Gray failed to inform his opinion in Wong Kim Ark with the fact that the U.S Supreme Court had questioned that opinion in 1881, just prior to Gray having joined the Court..."

And it gets better. Mark Latrine will be proud of what Leo's analysis does for the big dopes theory on anchor babies.

It supports it.

[Threadkiller]

Bens, did you pluck a feather from your ass?

[Ignatz]

--Bens, did you pluck a feather from your ass?--

That would be the feather of a turkey, or perhaps the last of the do dos, but definitely not an eagle.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Bold move, TK....Where is DoT?

[Ignatz]

--Tom McClintock has picked his favorite of the GOP field.--

I love McClintock, but found him less than convincing on this issue, TK.

[Threadkiller]

I agree Ig. I will look for more from McClintock. This would be a crucial endorsement if McClintock can justify it in his usual candor.

[centralcal]

I have many chores and little time, Iggy. WHO did McClintock endorse or at least picked as favorite?

[Threadkiller]

Gingrich.

[Jack is Back!]

McClintock and Gingrich.

Not surprising considering both of them have that Jesuit critical-thinking type of oblique approach to decisions and argumentation. Like, for example, his objection to the recent Defense Authorization bill. But if I remember correctly, he and Newt aren't on the same page there but I could be wrong. Didn't Newt defend Obama's drone killing of al-Awaki (and American citizen) during one of the debates?

[daddy]

Wow,

Shannon Bream hosting FOX this morning sure is cute.

A great channel to switch to during Football commercials.

Back to the Ball Game. Go Giants!

[Benjamin Franklin]

Santorum, Gingrich and McClintock.

The Holy Trinity of Rome....

Ties up the Catholic vote, pretty well.

[matt]

If one needs further evidence of the completely out of touch administration, the Post reports that Kantor's book reports that The Emperor and Princess Shopping Cart held an Alice in Wonderland Halloween Ball in 2009 starring Johnny Depp, Tim Burton, and George Lucas. How apropos.

There is a Louis XVI streak in these two that is reprehensible.

[Cecil Turner]

I don't follow McClintock, and completely disagree with him on the due process for unlawful combatants issue. He looks more resonable on some of the other issues.

And I don't know if that's his website or if it's a supporter's, but if he's going to use the word "principle" that often, he really needs to learn how to spell it.

[Old Lurker]

Did I scan too quickly?

Is it not curious that in the rush to condemn this manner of recess appointment, it is not pointed out that the consumer guy requires an affirmative confirmation by the Senate before he gets power?

While not belittling the recess for me is not recess for thou hypocracy, how do they get around the clear language of their own law? I know we know that here at JOM, but otut there the silence is deafening.

[Janet]

Clinton, Gore, Obama.
The holy trinity of Gomorrah...
Ties up the Godless vote, pretty well.

[centralcal]

OMG - I just saw that Tony Blankley has died.

[Jack is Back!]

OL,

Did you miss the reference on the other thread to "The Pharaoh"?

"So let it be written. So let it be done."

The question is - who will be our Moses?

[centralcal]

Well, I see he had been battling stomach cancer, so it wasn't sudden and unexpected. I had no idea. RIP Tony.

[Jack is Back!]

OL,

Did you miss the reference on the other thread to "The Pharaoh"?

"So, let it be written. So let it be done".

The only question is - who will be our Moses?

[daddy]

Good MayBee comment over at Althouse.

In a post titled "Did Romney — who went to Harvard Law School — display ignorance of the Supreme Court's decisions on the right of privacy and contraception?", Althouse (who last time voted for Constitutional Scholar Obama) somewhat criticizes Mitt's Contraception responses to that snot Stepanopoulis last night saying:

"As a constitutional law professor, let me say that this is the way a lot of judges and scholars talk about law. Romney's engagement with law at this point is actually sophisticated, even as it looks simple."

MayBee pastes that and responds beautifully:

"This may be the way judges and scholars talk about law, but to me, an unsophisticated non-scholar, it makes me wonder how this right to privacy protects contraception but not marijuana or trans-fats.
Or how the "right to privacy" can't be invoked to keep you from having to disclose to the government whether you've purchased health insurance.

Sometimes it seems legal scholars are all about walking into a forest and declaring it to actually be a series of stand-alone trees."

Excellent MayB's!

[Threadkiller]

I don't find the objectionable part of what McClintock objected to in the bill.

"I rise in opposition to Section 1021 of the underlying Conference Report (H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act).

This section specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with “substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any ‘associated forces’” – whatever that means.

Would “substantial support” of an “associated force,” mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don’t know. The question is, “do we really want to find out?”

We’re told not to worry – that the bill explicitly states that nothing in it shall alter existing law.

But wait. There is no existing law that gives the President the power to ignore the Bill of Rights and detain Americans without due process. There is only an assertion by the last two presidents that this power is inherent in an open-ended and ill-defined war on terrorism. But it is a power not granted by any act of Congress. At least, not until now.

What this bill says is, “What Presidents have only asserted, Congress now affirms in statute.”

We’re told that this merely pushes the question to the Supreme Court to decide if indefinite detainment is compatible with any remaining vestige of the Bill of Rights.

That’s a good point, IF the Court were the sole guardian of the Constitution. But it is not. If it were, there would be no reason to require every member of Congress to swear to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution.

We are also its guardians.

And today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

As far as things Newt and McClintock may not see eye to eye on, I would put bench sharing with Pelosi pretty high up on the list.

That is why I will wait to hear more from him and only hope to resist his Jesuit mind tricks.

[Jane]

Where CC? I had dinner with him in November. His wife told me he was cancer free.

On a lighter note: I was a fly on the wall at the debate prep.

[Jack is Back!]

Sorry about the double post but I got a touch of typepadicus.

CC,

Wasn't Blankley an ex-press secretary for Gingrich or am I thinking of someone else?

And regarding the last two debates hosted by ABC and NBC and why the republican candidates submit themselves to such obvious deception and camaflouge of the real issues. Didn't the dem candidates in 08 refuse to do a Fox sponsored debate? Or am I thinking they tried to avoid it but couldn't in the end.

[Captain Hate]

Well, I see he had been battling stomach cancer, so it wasn't sudden and unexpected. I had no idea. RIP Tony.

I didn't either. Farewell to the last person I could stand listening to on the McLaughlin Group. He impressed me greatly with his ability to exist within that hive of gasbags with a smile on his face.

[daddy]

So sad about Tony Blankly. Just saw that. Bummer.

I always really liked the guy. Thought he was an adult and a straight shooter.

[Jane]

Wasn't Blankley an ex-press secretary for Gingrich

Yes, and he also worked for Reagan. He lost 85 lbs last summer battling stomach cancer. He thought he had beat it. I asked him if Newt won would he be his press secretary. he said he would be anything Newt wanted him to be.

I really liked his wife. I feel terrible for her.

[Frau Genug-ist-genug]

Damn the torpedoes!
OWS urges government to take money from
others to pay for their self-inflicted debts.

Dems "urged" to make health care *free* to all by destroying the system.

Pres. Obama urges citizens to accept his fundamentally altered United States in the name of income redistribution and social justice. Or else.

Prof. Kelo Cleo urges town to use eminent domain to take over water company whether funds are available or not.
Full steam ahead!

[daddy]

Ouch, I've got a headache.

Time to go shoplifting.

[Captain Hate]

daddy, I hope you realized I was just pulling your leg on that "fishing for compliments" comment after the excellent job you did. I'd never badmouth a fellow ACCer; even a Hole, albeit an uncommonly modest one.

[Cecil Turner]

First I'd seen of it as well. I'd heard he had cancer. I'm sorry it beat him. He was one of the good guys. RIP Tony.

[Benjamin Franklin]

"We are also its guardians."

Even the deaf, dumb and blind can experience the 'shock of recognition'..

McClintock has his......yours?

[Porchlight]

Oh no - how sad. Tony Blankley was one of the McLaughlin group when I cut my political teeth on it as a youngster. He was really funny and could make the libs laugh even when he was annoying the carp out of them with his incisive analysis. RIP, Tony, I liked you a lot.

[Frau Genug-ist-genug]

It's sad news about Tony Blakely who was always worth listening to or reading.

Janet scores at 2:16.

[Jack is Back!]

TK,

That was not a criticism of McClintock being of the Jesuit critical thinking school but a complement. He is only one of a handful in Congress who can truly handle the liberal hogwash disguised as metaphyical certitude. [Since we have mentioned McLaughlin:]

[DrJ]

You should read the trash published locally about McClintock, and particularly in the letters to the editor. You'd think he disembowels kittens and eats them for breakfast.

[Cecil Turner]

There is only an assertion by the last two presidents that this power is inherent in an open-ended and ill-defined war on terrorism.

At best this is historically illiterate. The power to detain citizens under military charges goes back to the Civil War at least (e.g., Vallandingham), and was explicitly stated by SCOTUS in the WWII Quirin case as it pertained to Herbert Haupt:

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615 , 617 S., 618. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.

Haupt was executed along with 5 of his co-conspirators, in the largest mass execution by electrocution in US history.

We can argue whether this is the appropriate remedy for unlawful combatants engaged in terror attacks on US soil. (I contend that it is.) But there is no doubt it predates an assertion by the last two Administrations.

[Jack is Back!]

Cecil,

I think Newt's response was to some airhead talking head anchorperson but I can't remember who it was. But his rejoiner to her was classic Newt and shocked the left since he ended up defending the Obama administrations actions of extreme prejudice against an American citizen regardless of the fact that citizen was being seditious. Anyone remember who the anchor babe was?

[centralcal]

JiB: Wasn't it Scott Pelley with CBS, instead of an "anchor babe?"

[Danube of Thought]

RIP Tony Blankley, one of the good guys. I wasn't aware that he was ill.

[Ignatz]

--Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.--

I'm doubtful McClintock or many other people would object in those circumstances, Cecil.

His question is what exactly does "substantial support" of an "associated force" mean.

I'm a little curious myself, since it seems rather far removed from the description in Quirin.
One hopes it is further defined in the Federal statutes somewhere.

[Danube of Thought]

"how do they get around the clear language of their own law?"

I don't believe they will. The courts won't get involved until the guy purports to exercise his power, and some affected party brings a challenge.

[Extraneus]

Didn't the dem candidates in 08 refuse to do a Fox sponsored debate?

Wouldn't it be nice if Republicans singled out one of the LSM networks and announced a similar refusal?

[daddy]

Some interesting updates are out today concerning the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean.

1) Severe weather rebuffs Russian ship trying to save trapped belugas:

This story comments on the 100 Beluga's trapped a month back in rapidly forming Pack Ice. It says a Russian Rescue Ice Breaker had to return to port due to sever weather, and then lists some ships that have already sunk or been trapped and partially crushed in Pack Ice this year. Story also says;

"In Russia, a different story about the Beluga whales has captured the headlines, which has not yet been reported in Western outlets."

Seems that 88 of the Beluga's may have escaped, but makes you wonder what other stories going on up here have "not yet been reported in Western outlets."

2) Slow going with the Russian Tanker heading to Nome. If you read the ADN it says the ship is traveling at 5 to 6 miles an hour and has made another 20 to 30 miles since Saturday morning. But if you read the Alaska Dispatch you read that after 12 hours of steaming on Saturday they had made only 10 miles progress north. Yet both papers say the Ship still has 190 miles left to go. Who to believe? (Scratches head)

3) Still no mention in any papers up here about this being an unusually early or large season of Sea Pack Ice, but this story on Alaskan Snow Crab tells us "The Bering Sea snow crab fishery is picking up earlier than usual as the fleet scrambles to pull up the catch before encroaching sea ice shuts them down."
Sea ice hastens Bering Sea snow crab fishery.

So put it all together; Beluga's trapped in Pack Ice, Ice breakers returning to Port due to severe weather, Bering Sea ships sinking and crushed by pack Ice, Ice Breakers moving at a snails pace to Nome, and Snow Crabbers scrambling to beat encroaching Pack Ice, and what do you got? This ADN story: Arctic ice melt-off is killing seal pups, study indicates

Wonder which one of those stories "will be reported in Western Outlets?"

[Jack is Back!]

CC,

Decided to google the question you are correct. It was Scott Pelley trying to be his generation's Walter Cronkite foisting his personal views in the debate. Looking back on Newt's answer it seems he was well briefed by Cecil evidently:)

[Ignatz]

--Wouldn't it be nice if Republicans singled out one of the LSM networks and announced a similar refusal?--

One?

[More theology and geometry, please.]

Why you fly miraculous birds and they fly corrupted keyboards, daddy.
==============

[peter]

I recently watched video of Tony Blankley, and could not believe how different he looked. I did not realize he was ill. Rest in peace, Tony. Great guy.

[peter]

I can't recall a playoff game ever ending with a team scoring only 2 points.

[Extraneus]

Yeah, just single one out on some particularly egregious pretext.

"This is just beyond the pale. We know that the legacy networks lean left, and we understand that, but [enter network acronym here] can no longer claim to be a news network. They're an arm of Obama 2012 reelection committee and should register as such with the FEC."

Just pick one. Put them in the crosshairs on the defensive and see how the other networks react.

[Jack is Back!]

Peter,

It was the first time a playoff game ended with the losing score being less than a FG:) The G-men looked pretty solid today especially getting the running game going again.

A few minutes before Tebow-time. I hear Dan Brown is there to cover the game for a possible new book about how an X and O drawing in Tebow's playbook leads back to a Vatican conspiracy to control the NFL.

[Cecil Turner]

His question is what exactly does "substantial support" of an "associated force" mean.

I've got to get going in a couple minutes, but that's not the way I read his objection. The "due process" and "Bill of Rights" references suggested to me his objection was to the principle of military detention; and if so, I can't support him.

The bill specifically references authorizations to use military force against terrorist organizations that've already killed thousands of Americans. I can't see how it's significantly different in principle from the Quirin saboteurs. As to the definitions they're here (in part, sections 1021 & 1022):

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

That verbiage for law of war violations is pretty much what I'd expect. It's necessarily less specific than a comparable criminal statute. Not sure how much more precise one could be, nor why you'd want to. In my opinion, this legislation is long overdue and mostly restates the law of war to allow traditional remedies (i.e., military commissions) that've been derailed by SCOTUS in the last few years precisely because there weren't any congressional guidelnes.

[Threadkiller]

JiB, I read "oblique" not as you wrote it. My mistake. Sorry for the retort.

Cecil, it is the specific language that grants this power to the President.

"Section 1021 thus claims that it merely “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF, including the alleged authority to detain persons the President determines are “associated forces.” While the section is framed as an affirmation, it can be viewed as that only if Congress adopted the President’s expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF—an action Congress never had taken before Thursday. To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday, or the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who “substantially supported . . . associated forces.”

http://www.facebook.com/notes/justin-amash/the-truth-about-the-new-detainee-policy-in-the-ndaa/296584837047596

[BB Key]

My favorite memory of Tony Blankley was when he was a token conservative on the Diane Rehm show . Diane was gone and Susan Page was the guest hostess....Tony stated the MSM coverage of Obama was analagous to fellatio .... needless to say when Diane heard about this he was banned for life...RIP

[hit and run]

daddy:
Yet both papers say the Ship still has 190 miles left to go. Who to believe? (Scratches head)

Sounds like a 4th grade math story problem.

Let's go to re-write.

If a ship leaves Dutch Harbor headed to Nome traveling 6 mph on Tuesday,and propaganda-driven media writes a story on Wednesday,which will make it around the world before the truth gets its boots on?

[Jack is Back!]

BB Key,

I have always said that there should be names never mentioned on blog comments and heading that list is the head hag of horrendous hate and humourless humbug - Diane Rehm. I cannot believe she is still vertical after all these years. Is she sitll with the AU Fm NPR station WAMU?

/But a great station for bluegrass on Saturday mornings.

[BB Key]

JiB, still there asking penetrating questions like 'How so'....

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet]

From a quick gander at the Rehm wiki bio, I note she was born and raised in DC and never went to college. From whence cometh her self proclaimed erudition and insufferable condescension?

[Jack is Back!]

Jim Rhoads,

A clue:

"In her autobiography, Rehm said she had been molested at the age of nine by a congressman whose identity she has not revealed.[1]

"

[Old Lurker]

Well they have been molesting the rest of us ever since so she should put some ice on it and move on.

[daddy]

Yay TeBow!

2 beautiful throws in a row. Hope they don't call the TD back for out of bounds.

[Gmax]

Who the hell is Diane Rehm?

[hit and run]

How many first half TDs did Tebow throw this season?

[Jack is Back!]

"Touchdown" Timmy Tebow does it again when everyone was getting ready to write him and the Broncs off as being overmatched (which they were in the 1st Q).

DoT better start working on that invisibility shield, just in case.

[daddy]

"I'm about 600 comments behind before I get started."

Welcome to my world every single day.

[rse]

jimmyk-

How influential in your mind was the economist mentioned in the LUN?

Is he really the father of the now dominate economics as mathematical modeling approach?

Anyone else can join in. I don't want to mention why it matters so much yet.

[Jack is Back!]

Is it possible to disguise Drew Brees as Tim Tebow and get away with it?

[Clarice]

TM, this thread header is a particularly fine piece of work by you..

[hit and run]

Tebow!

rushing td

[Captain Hate]

The MAGIC is strong today. Lady DoTdiva should be getting ready for a run.

[daddy]

Drudge has up this Daily Caller story headlines as follows:

"543,812 union workers receive Obamacare waivers..."

I wish our Candidates in the debates would scream this easily understood factoid from the rooftops and pound it to victory, namely,

"How the Hell can ObamaCare be so stinking wonderful to Americans if Obama is intentionally exempting over half a million Obama supporters from having to comply with it?"

[Jack is Back!]

Well, I guess God is back from his vacation in South America.

Touchdown - Timmy Tebow. 14 to 6 Broncos.

I hear Martin Scorese wants the filming rights to I-5 for February:)

[Melinda Romanoff]

I always thought Frisch was the Father Of Econometrics, but I could be wrong, since I'm allergic to the subject. jimmyk would know more.