Obama Appointments Ruled Unconstitutional
Wow.
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.
The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.
Obama, an alleged Harvard constitutional lawyer graduate, getting slapped by this ruling…
That is funny.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1351 hrs
Union membership declining under Obama and now this , wow is right . You just keep on helping your brothers and sisters Mr. President. Perhaps they didn’t write him a big enough check during the campaign.
Don’t know the actual reason what his grudge against the union is but man he isn’t doing them any favors.Let the drumming begin…......four more years….four more years…...four more years….............
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1405 hrs
Maybe if the Republicans in the Senate would occasionally deign to even consider appointments without an anonymous block or a filibuster, the president wouldn’t feel the need to circumvent the normal confirmation process.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1415 hrs
I guess the “advise and consent” part of the constitution is merely a suggestion apc?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1448 hrs
It’s high time that the Senate change its rules to allow nominees an up or down vote within a reasonable period of time. Members of both parties have gummed up this process with petty gamesmanship for far too long.
There’s no good reason that the advice and consent process on nominees needs to take longer than 60 days. Do your research, hold your hearings, and vote.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 25, 2013 at 1544 hrs
Recess,
Why would we want our government to work, and allow appointments and allocate funds designated for safety and all the governmenty sort of stuff, when we can block, avoid, divert and make the country less functional so WE can rule!! Gosh who cares about the country as long as WE can Rule! I am sick of all of them.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1601 hrs
Let’s see: Forty-one of 100 Senators can block nominees and then go into permanent session to prevent recess appointments, which, in effect, abolishes the National Labor Relations Board without the inconvenience of passing legislation. I know we live in a Republic, not a democracy, but this is minority rule in the extreme.
Posted by Northern Pike on January 25, 2013 at 1727 hrs
Lemme see. The Boy King violates the Constitution here. He violates the War Powers Act of 1973 in Libya. He lied about Benghazi. His minions lie about Benghazi. He was involved in Operation Fast and Furious, if not directly, via Eric Witholder, and he’s still in ofice why?
If he was a Repubic, the Left would be screaming for his impeachment and y’all damn well know it.
Wait, he’s half black. That’s the saving grace.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 2055 hrs
Kevin Scheunemann,
Lord Dingle Barry was nothing but an adjunct guest lecturer. His being a Constitutional “professor” was another lie put out by Axleroid and Plouffe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 2057 hrs
Maybe if the Senate could actually pass a budget they might be able to do some other stuff.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 2133 hrs
OK, Mr. Leatherneck, you want to play that game?
As I recall, a previous administration lied about weapons of mass destruction and blundered us into a war that cost 4,000 American lives and squandered $1 trillion. Puts Benghazi and Fast and Furious into perspective, doesn’t it.
Remember the 1983 Lebanaon bombing that left 241 American soldiers dead? A military fact-finding identified security lapses. Happened under a guy named Ronald Reagan. And don’t forget Iran-Contra.
No administration pitches a perfect game, but when it comes competence, character and credibility, I’ll take the present administration over the previous one. By a long shot.
And don’t give me that half-black crap. I voted for Obama in 2008 because he was the only major candidate who didn’t support the Iraq War resolution. I voted for him again because his Republican opponent detests 47 percent of the American people.
Posted by Northern Pike on January 25, 2013 at 2201 hrs
Northern Pike ,
Save your breath , the last comment , about being half black, is despicable..He has nothing to say . Ignore him .
As usual , we could end the topic with RS at #5.
Leatherneck , please crawl back under the rock you came from .
Mark .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 2328 hrs
As I recall, a previous administration lied about weapons of mass destruction
That in itself is a lie.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During the regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was believed to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.Knowing what we now know about the Middle East from Munich in 72 and everything that led up to 09/11/2011 Why did our state department leave Benghazi unprotected on the 11th anniversary of that date then lie about a video??? Now we’re told the truth makes no difference when America is attacked.
The most open administration in history does everything behind closed doors while their supporters lie about the Bush administration.
Obama lied under oath twice when he swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Obama called Bush’s debt unpatriotic. His is worse. I am getting tired of paying for employees who lie to me on a regular basis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 2342 hrs
Saddam was only a threat if someone was testifying about a blue dress that day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0114 hrs
Probably also worth noting that this ruling runs contrary to a number of other previous rulings regarding recess appointments in other administrations that the Supreme Court, at the time, declined to review. There’s also a chance that the Supreme Court could find that the Senate’s highly transparent use of pro forma sessions (something done by both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell) unduly encroaches upon the executive power granted in Article 2. I wouldn’t be much inclined to predict an outcome beyond the Obama administration appealing the case.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 26, 2013 at 0145 hrs
Terry citing Wiki? Oy vey.
COuple questions…Since no official was fired in the aftermath of the first 9/11 despite the same convincing evidence ahead of time…why the gyrations now, after 3,000 Americans were killed 11 years ago versus 4 last year in Benghazi? Is it relative, or how do you excuse it?
Using your “knowing what we now know” barometer…who would you fire for 9/11/01? If your position is “no one,” maybe you could explain your conversion, when it took place, and why earlier officials were absolved of their lax oversight? Trendy conservatives are self-flagellating over security failures…Rand Paul would have fired Hilary. Using this criteria, who should we sacked for the 1983 Marine barracks bombing - George Shultz? Or Judge Clark? The embassy was bombed and 17 Americans killed six months before the barracks bombing, yet the president did nothing to improve security until those 241 Marines were killed by muslim nihilists in Oct.
Pussy Dems in Congress in 1983 didn’t call for investigations, or heads to roll. Didn’t make a spectacle of themselves in open session. Just quietly voted in support of Reagan’s big diplomatic security funding package the day he introduced it. Idiots.
If he had any sense, Obama would send paratroopers into some banana republic (Mali?) next week to save medical students and do a bit of regime toppling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0342 hrs
What else were they going to rule? That the President can decide when Congress is in session?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0717 hrs
RS is spot on, as is BVB. What else were they going to say? And what do you think SCOTUS is going to say about the Senate’s practice of holding fake sessions to prevent the President from using his constitutional powers.
And remember all those federal courts that said Obamacare was unconstitutional? And all the glee you all had at making fun of Obama having graduated from Harvard Law then passing unconstitutional laws? What was the outcome of that piece of legislation, again? I forget…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0923 hrs
There’s also a chance that the Supreme Court could find that the Senate’s highly transparent use of pro forma sessions (something done by both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell) unduly encroaches upon the executive power granted in Article 2.
Not sure I agree. It’s nearly impossible to tell the difference between the output of the Senate’s pro forma sessions and the normal ones.
I suspect that the SC will agree with the ruling, although I’d rather we implemented the old “nuclear option” that drove the Democrats into fits of desperation during the Bush era of requiring votes on Constitutionally mandated powers, but that’s not in the political interests of parties in the minority (or soon to be in the minority).
The recess appointment clause is clearly intended as a stopgap measure and is not intended as an end-around to the Senate’s internal rules which are its prerogative. The clause on appointments being conditional upon the consent of the Senate is clearly the controlling one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1305 hrs
Ahhhh, poor libbies upset at the troof?
Northern Polesmkr, the bombing in Lebanon was not Reagan’s bust, the ROE came from the Admiral running the show. I know, I WAS THERE!
Not to mention that 75% of the casualties in Afghanistan and 75% of the spending there has ocurred on DUMBO’s WATCH! Oops. Damn those pesky facts.
Oh, and spending? Your messiah added 5 TRILLION in new spending and we’re worse off than before.
Operation Fast and Furious? Eric Witholder held in contempt of Congress and still running DOJ? Dumbo violated the Constitution with an illegal war in Libya. Now Yemen. Troops in Uganda protecting his homeland of Kenya.
Ain’t facts a bitch?
Mark Maley, I’d LOVE to engage you in a battle of wits but you are unarmed and the Corps taught me not to engage non-combatants. Now go attend your union meeting meathead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1312 hrs
God help us all if HRWL and Badger ever get in an online argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1351 hrs
Leatherneck , I own a $85 million / year sales agency that I built from dirt,, graduated summa cum in 4 years from college playing division 1 football. With a double major in economics and English .
I am not only defenseless against cretins like you , I would welcome the conversation
please bring a second to our duel of wits to translate monosyllabic words for an intellectual knuckle dragger like yourself.
The corps offered classes I’m sure. Why didn’t you ever take advantage of them ?
Thank you for your service. You are dismissed .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1404 hrs
hehe… you have a degree in English? I can only assume that you mean what you wrote then:
“I am not only defenseless against cretins like you…”
Posted by Owen on January 26, 2013 at 1413 hrs
Nerdbert, if you’re so sure that’s the case, I’d be curious to know why you think the court has declined to consider previous rulings by appellate courts that upheld the practice of recess appointments made under other dubious circumstances? The court’s had opportunities previously to inveigh on the matter of recess appointments and it’s never bothered to do so.
Although we do seem to be in agreement that just requiring a damn vote is the way to go. Advice and consent has turned into delay and extort.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 27, 2013 at 0057 hrs
Am I SUPPOSED to be impressed Mark? Okay, here goes…Whoop-de-friggin’-do! Gee, for all your self-accolades, you present not unlike an ignorant moron. Hopefully, you don’t really believe what you write whilst washing the Messiah’s feet with your tears.
egad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2013 at 1505 hrs
Good article,thanks.
Posted by best drum software on February 16, 2013 at 1209 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 39
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/19/2013 02:13 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).