Originally Posted by Direckshun
Really, all of this, just about every sentence, is one form of nonsense or another.
But the bolded part is really what informs you. You don't think the NLRB is remotely important.
If you did, you'd understand it clearly fits your stated standard of "needs to be filled with urgency."
Of course, you don't much care for standards, and I understand attempting to hold you to your own is a fool's mission. But it's important to keep our eye on the ball here: you invented a standard (an urgent appointment), I argue that this standard is definitiely met (this is crucial enough to be urgent), and your response is: no it isn't, with pretty much no explanation.
That's on you. You don't think there should be any centralized understanding in this country of how unions work.
Which I'm not even sure if that's true, because I'm not even sure if you've spent the time pouring over that issue to warrant the opinions you're spouting off here. Opinions with no ideological mooring or internal consistency.
There is a difference between a vacancy that happens while the Senate is in recess and it needs to be filled immediately, and a vacancy that is unfilled before Senate goes into recess (or in this case, didn't go into recess) and the president goes around the Senate to fill the vacancy. If the vacancy needs to be filled urgently, the Senate will fill it before going into recess.
The constitution clearly states that the vacancy must happen during the recess. Even if the Senate would've been in recess when Obama made the appointments, the vacancies did not happen during the recess.