Supreme Court limits president's recess appointment power

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Jun 26, 2014.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    The Supreme Court delivered a blow Thursday to President Obama, ruling that he went too far in making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

    In a unanimous decision, the high court sided with Senate Republicans and limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments. It was the first-ever Supreme Court test involving the long-standing practice of presidents naming appointees when the Senate is on break.

    In this case, Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break when he filled slots at the NLRB in 2012. He argued the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling the seats.

    The justices rejected that argument, though, declaring the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted during that three-day window.

    Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/26/supreme-court-limits-president-recess-appointment-power/
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    OBama is probably fuming
     
  3. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    So. Does that mean all his illegal appointees have stepped down?
     
  4. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    64
    Bout time he got his hand slapped. Now if we could just have him, Valerie Jarrett and Eric Holder exiled to the asteroid belt, we'd be better off.
     
  5. padredurand

    padredurand
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    20
    I was thinking the same thing. They made a legal decision without teeth as far as I can tell.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    So, the anti American commies he appointed to the nlrb are history.

    That's good.
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    They have and since then he has appointed new people who have been confirmed by the Senate. Where this judgement will have an effect now, other than making future recess appointments, is with regards to the decisions these three illegal appointees made. Reports are they made some 1800 decisions that can now be challenged. Each one will have to be challenged in court.
     
  8. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is, the liberal wing of the Court, by a 5-4 back door vote during opinion negotiations, chose not to limit appointments as the Constitution describes, but have left a far more liberal interpretation in place, allowing for recess appointments any time the Senate is in so-called "full recess" -- i.e., out of town for three or more days. That isn't what the founders said in the founding document.

    The Constitution describes a "full recess" only as that time between sessions. That's once every two years, after the November elections and before reconvening for the new term the following year. The decision Thursday effectively negates the Constitution's position that only cabinet-level offices that become vacant during the between-terms recess may be filled with a recess appointment. All the Court has said is, "Well, a three-day absence isn't a 'recess,' but maybe a month-long absence is ... " :rolleyes:

    This decision is a joke. Conservative Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent everyone should read.
    SCOTUS effectively did nothing. Absolutely nothing. All Obama has to do is reappoint his appointees, and all they have to do is affirm every decision they've made the last three years.

    With this decision, nothing changes. It becomes a cosmetic public slapdown that accomplishes nothing.
     
    #8 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jun 27, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2014
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    There is nothing about this post that is correct.
     
  10. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, Rev, everything about that post is correct. Why would Scalia write such a concurring opinion if he didn't think the liberals had screwed the pooch on their decision? You'd better read the analysts' take on the Court's ruling. They agree. Nothing was accomplished.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    I have read quite a few of them. To say nothing was accomplished is hyperbole. Nothing more.
     
  12. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ruling is a very broad interpretation of "recess." You might want to read a news story about it by someone who actually read the decision. The emphasis is mine.
    I don't know if the liberal media is being unbelievably stupid in its reporting of the decision, or if they are simply being cagey and hope no one notices this is a nothing decision. Sure, it hinders Obama and his NLRB -- but only temporarily. It will be handled just as I said: He'll wait for the first recess longer than ten days, reappoint his board, which will then vote to do exactly as it has done for the last three years.

    Fox and The Washington Times are the only ones who have actually delved into the decision and come to the same conclusion that Scalia did: They effectively negated the Constitution in favor of "tradition" -- which should actually be read as "political expediency for the guy in office."
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    Maybe you should read the argument the Obama admin made for justification.
     
  14. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did. They're immaterial. They made an argument they thought would win, not one that had anything literal to do with the issue.

    I fail to see how we can celebrate this decision, since doing so requires us to ignore Scalia's opinion that, while concurring with the decision, laments the negation of Constitutional principle.
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    I don't. The President took a childish stand and said "Poor little me they are just pickin on me and won't let me do what I want. So I should be able to ignore their recess because their motives are against me."

    He got his hand unanimously slapped. He does not get to void the checks and balances of our government.
     
  16. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    :BangHead: ... and all the Court told him was that he has to wait for more than three days!! Then he can "void the checks and balances of our government" to his heart's content! Good grief!
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    On that I will give you the last word because it is not a crime to be wrong.
     
  18. Max Fenster

    Max Fenster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ten days instead of three days. Executive power is crushed?

    Seems more like a tap on the nose and a pat on the head.
     
    #18 Max Fenster, Jun 27, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2014
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Some liberals (i.e. Slate's Political Gabfest) are seeing this as a victory for the president.
     

Share This Page

Loading...