PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court limits president's recess appointment power



Mr. Mensch
06-26-2014, 09:42 AM
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 ruled in favor of Senate Republicans and limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments.



The court upheld the general authority of the president to make recess appointments, but said Obama lacked the power to fill slots at the NLRB during a brief, three-day Senate recess in 2012.
Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB.
The justices rejected that argument.

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

Barry ain't gonna like to hear this!



http://media.salon.com/2010/05/war_on_whisteblowers_intensifies-460x295.jpg

Peter1469
06-26-2014, 09:45 AM
This is going to overturn a lot of cases..., but it was inevitable. The Administration's position here was never legally defensible.

nic34
06-26-2014, 09:49 AM
Why the recess appointments? Maybe its too much to ask that congress do its job too.

Peter1469
06-26-2014, 09:58 AM
Why the recess appointments? Maybe its too much to ask that congress do its job too.

Separation of powers is meant to allow the government to meddle in our lives for really important stuff that they can agree on.

That was the brilliance of our Founders.

And what modern progressives are trying to destroy.

Alyosha
06-26-2014, 10:00 AM
Congress's job is not to always approve the president's every whim or else we have a defacto monarchy. Laws and appointments should be harder to make so that we don't end up with 13 billion of them.

Common Sense
06-26-2014, 10:03 AM
This is a good precedent.

texan
06-26-2014, 10:03 AM
So far this this week its Republicans 27-0 and 3-0 vs. liberal crap. Even their judges are not complying.

sachem
06-26-2014, 10:04 AM
SCOTUS got one right.

Kalkin
06-26-2014, 10:29 AM
This is a good precedent.
Sometimes a good precedent is inspired by a bad president. :)

Green Arrow
06-26-2014, 11:15 AM
Why the recess appointments? Maybe its too much to ask that congress do its job too.

If Congress doesn't do its job, that doesn't give the President the right to usurp authority he doesn't have.

TheInternet
06-26-2014, 12:11 PM
Why the recess appointments? Maybe its too much to ask that congress do its job too.

Damn, you got slapped down on that one, son.

But, I agree with you. Why the hell should that pesky congress get in the way of what King Obama wants to do!?!? He's got a pen and a phone!

Blackrook
06-26-2014, 07:45 PM
Obama is getting nailed by his own judicial appointees.

Peter1469
06-26-2014, 07:51 PM
Most judges at the federal level act responsibly once in office.

Cigar
06-26-2014, 09:10 PM
I wonder if any of the political experts on this forum can "name" the last President who has had "less" Executive Orders or "less" recess appointments?

:laugh:

The "only" reason why The Supreme Court is making soo many decisions is because The United States Congress, yes our so-called 3rd branch, does "Nothing".

Peter1469
06-26-2014, 09:24 PM
I wonder if any of the political experts on this forum can "name" the last President who has had "less" Executive Orders or "less" recess appointments?

:laugh:

The "only" reason why The Supreme Court is making soo many decisions is because The United States Congress, yes our so-called 3rd branch, does "Nothing".

The number of EOs is not relevant. It is what the EOs do.

But, what does the hard left care of our Constitution...?

nic34
06-26-2014, 09:33 PM
At the same time, the court largely reinstated an uneasy, centuries-long accommodation between the executive branch and the Senate, in which recess appointments were allowed during more substantial breaks. Justice Breyer said such appointments generally remained permissible so long as they were made during breaks of 10 or more days,

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0&referrer=

Not that big a deal after all. Just keep it within 10 days.

BTW, everyone's good with congress working just over a hundred days this year?

Keep sending them back, and give them a raise while you're at it.... fools....

Kalkin
06-26-2014, 09:35 PM
I wonder if any of the political experts on this forum can "name" the last President who has had "less" Executive Orders or "less" recess appointments?

Do you alway confuse quantity with content? Or is that the only talking point they've fed you?

nic34
06-26-2014, 09:37 PM
The number of EOs is not relevant. It is what the EOs do.

But, what does the hard left care of our Constitution...?



When asked what EOs boehner was filing suit over he had no answer.

Yeah, they'll think something up.

Big talk about the constitution from folks that don't even know what's in it.

Peter1469
06-26-2014, 09:41 PM
When asked what EOs boehner was filing suit over he had no answer.

Yeah, they'll think something up.

Big talk about the constitution from folks that don't even know what's in it.


Libs don't know or care about the Constitution as evidenced from their actions. You are just tossing out dross.

nic34
06-26-2014, 09:48 PM
Thus critics of Mr. Obama’s orders should file lawsuits, as a remedy, if they can prove that his decrees seek to make law or else violate rights. It isn’t enough for these critics to claim that Mr. Obama has issued many orders. Congress itself has issued a cascade of new laws in recent years; it’s natural that the executive branch would issue orders to “execute” such laws; one merely follows the other. Otherwise, Mr. Obama is a mere piker when it comes to issuing decrees; he’s been easily out-distanced by the likes of those Republicans –*e.g.,*Eisenhower and Reagan – who today’s conservatives claim to be paragons of constitutionally-limited government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2013/01/28/when-it-comes-to-abuse-of-presidential-power-obama-is-a-mere-piker/

Peter1469
06-26-2014, 09:53 PM
uh...

Private Pickle
06-26-2014, 10:09 PM
uh...

Yeah...it was a fail...

nic34
06-26-2014, 10:26 PM
Yeah, it might be beyond your grasp, but check the Forbes link anyway.....

Kalkin
06-26-2014, 10:29 PM
When asked what EOs boehner was filing suit over he had no answer.

Yeah, they'll think something up.

Big talk about the constitution from folks that don't even know what's in it.
Are you that uninformed or just being purposefully dense? I've just skimmed the story and realize there a number of possible situations that could apply, as reported. Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit.

Archer0915
06-26-2014, 10:42 PM
Thus critics of Mr. Obama’s orders should file lawsuits, as a remedy, if they can prove that his decrees seek to make law or else violate rights. It isn’t enough for these critics to claim that Mr. Obama has issued many orders. Congress itself has issued a cascade of new laws in recent years; it’s natural that the executive branch would issue orders to “execute” such laws; one merely follows the other. Otherwise, Mr. Obama is a mere piker when it comes to issuing decrees; he’s been easily out-distanced by the likes of those Republicans –*e.g.,*Eisenhower and Reagan – who today’s conservatives claim to be paragons of constitutionally-limited government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2013/01/28/when-it-comes-to-abuse-of-presidential-power-obama-is-a-mere-piker/


Good read... Now did he or did he not violate the law when he released the terrorists to get a deserter back? Perhaps not an EO but... How about the changes to the Obozo care dates? Can he change loan contracts? So he can bypass congress and raise min wage for federal employees?..

zelmo1234
06-27-2014, 01:41 AM
At the same time, the court largely reinstated an uneasy, centuries-long accommodation between the executive branch and the Senate, in which recess appointments were allowed during more substantial breaks. Justice Breyer said such appointments generally remained permissible so long as they were made during breaks of 10 or more days,

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0&referrer=

Not that big a deal after all. Just keep it within 10 days.

BTW, everyone's good with congress working just over a hundred days this year?

Keep sending them back, and give them a raise while you're at it.... fools....

It also said that the Senate is the one to decide when it is in recess. even if it is only in secession for 30 seconds a day, it can still say that it is in secession.

So they effectively ended recess appointments. This means that all Presidents will have to avoid partisan hacks when looking to appointments

zelmo1234
06-27-2014, 01:47 AM
If you just look at the EO's that change the ACA? You can see that he is writing law not executing the law.

EO's should define the enforcement of Congressionally written and passed laws, singed by a President

For example if congress passes a law that says you must wear a blue shirt on Friday, and EO's could be written saying that as long as a shirt has 30% blue in it, it will be considered a blue shirt!

The EO's can't say I hate Blue we are changing it to pink

Professor Peabody
06-27-2014, 09:58 AM
Why the recess appointments? Maybe its too much to ask that congress do its job too.


In its opinion, Noel Canning v. NLRB, No. 12-1281 (attached here (http://www.reedsmith.com/files/uploads/Forbes/NLRB-v-Noel-Canning.pdf)), the High Court held that the President’s appointments were inconsistent with the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause. That Clause grants the President power “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 3. The Court reasoned that the Senate was not in a “Recess” under that Clause when the President made his appointments during the January 3-6, 2012 Senate “recess,” because that “recess” lasted only three days (albeit between a series of pro forma sessions).

http://www.reedsmith.com/files/uploads/Forbes/NLRB-v-Noel-Canning.pdf

Is it too much to ask that the President follow the Constitution? We have a system of checks and balances, it prevents unfettered authority by one branch of Government. As a Constitutional "scholar" :rollseyes:, we'd think Obama would know better.