Supreme Court limits president's recess appointment power

[Revmitchell]

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/

 

[Revmitchell]

OBama is probably fuming

 

[Aaron]

So. Does that mean all his illegal appointees have stepped down?

 

[Jkdbuck76]

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.

 

[padredurand]

So. Does that mean all his illegal appointees have stepped down?

I was thinking the same thing. They made a legal decision without teeth as far as I can tell.

 

[carpro]

So, the anti American commies he appointed to the nlrb are history.

That's good.

 

[Revmitchell]

So. Does that mean all his illegal appointees have stepped down?

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.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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 ... "

This decision is a joke. Conservative Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent everyone should read.

Reason.com: Scalia Criticizes Obama (and Breyer) for 'Adverse-Possession Theory of Executive Authority' in Recess Appointments Casehttp://reason.com/blog/2014/06/26/scalia-attack-obama-and-breyer-for-adverhttp://reason.com/blog/2014/06/26/scalia-attack-obama-and-breyer-for-adver

... Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, went much further than that. The Recess Appointments Clause, Scalia argued in his concurring opinion, "cabins" the president’s power in two ways. "First, it may be exercised only in 'the Recess of the Senate,' that is, the intermission between two formal legislative sessions. Second," Scalia continued, "it may be used to fill only those vacancies that 'happen during the Recess,' that is, offices that become vacant during that intermission. Both conditions are clear from the Constitution’s text and structure, and both were well understood at the founding."
-------
[Scalia wrote] ... "Today’s Court agrees that the appointments were inalid, but for the far narrower reason that they were made during a 3-day break in the Senate’s session. On its way to that result, the majority sweeps away the key textual limitations on the recess-appointment power. It holds, first, that the President can make appointments without the Senate’s participation even during short breaks in the middle of the Senate’s session, and second, that those appointments can fill offices that became vacant long before the break in which they were filled. The majority justifies those atextual results on an adverse-possession theory of executive authority: Presidents have long claimed the powers in question, and the Senate has not disputed those claims with sufficient vigor, so the Court should not “upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government them*
selves have reached.”

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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 ... "

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.

There is nothing about this post that is correct.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is nothing about this post that is correct.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

I have read quite a few of them. To say nothing was accomplished is hyperbole. Nothing more.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I have read quite a few of them. To say nothing was accomplished is hyperbole. Nothing more.

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.

Washington Times: Supreme Court strikes down Obama recess appointmentshttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/26/supremes-strike-down-obama-recess-appointments/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/26/supremes-strike-down-obama-recess-appointments/

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Obama overstepped his bounds when he tried to circumvent the Senate and install his nominees to key positions — but the justices left the heart of the executive branch’s recess appointment powers intact.

In a ruling freighted with constitutional implications, the justices said the president must wait for Congress to break for at least 10 days before he can use his recess powers, and said lawmakers on Capitol Hill generally get to decide what constitutes a recess.

The 9-0 decision, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, amounts to a court-issued spanking of Mr. Obama, and it returns the playing field between presidents and Congress back to where it was before he tried his 2012 end run.

But it was the way Justice Breyer reached his decision — saying decades of clear practice trump the written words of the Constitution — that may have the broader long-term implications. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a stinging concurring opinion, said the court had opened the door to clever lawyers finding yet more ways to expand the president’s powers beyond what the country’s founders intended.

“The real tragedy of today’s decision is not simply the abolition of the Constitution’s limits on the recess—appointment power and the substitution of a novel frame-work invented by this court. It is the damage done to our separation of powers jurisprudence more generally,” Justice Scalia wrote.

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."

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

Maybe you should read the argument the Obama admin made for justification.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Maybe you should read the argument the Obama admin made for justification.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

I fail to see how we can celebrate this decision,

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.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

: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!

 

[Revmitchell]

: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!

On that I will give you the last word because it is not a crime to be wrong.

 

[Max Fenster]

Ten days instead of three days. Executive power is crushed?

Seems more like a tap on the nose and a pat on the head.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Some liberals (i.e. Slate's Political Gabfest) are seeing this as a victory for the president.