Courts rule Obama recess appointments unconstituional

[cutthemdown]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...onstitutional/

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.

[B-Large]

Great, so check and balances on power still works...

[Rohirrim]

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

What's the point of having elections if the minority can simply block the implementation of policies they disagree with?

[B-Large]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

What's the point of having elections if the minority can simply block the implementation of policies they disagree with?

Its the design of the United States government, specifically making it very hard to get **** done.... its probably a good thing in the end

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by B-Large

Its the design of the United States government, specifically making it very hard to get **** done.... its probably a good thing in the end

This kind of partisan "torched earth" politics hasn't been seen in America since the Civil War. It's not something the founders would have agreed with in the slightest. It is ideologues using parliamentary procedure to block the will of the people from being done.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by B-Large

Its the design of the United States government, specifically making it very hard to get **** done.... its probably a good thing in the end

Actually it's not the design of the Constitution, it's based on rules the Senate made up. The Constitution does not specify anything about filibusters.

The U.S. Goverment is designed to be inefficient, by way of having four different bodies needing to agree on something (or a supermajority of two) in order for anything to get done.

The Filibuster is a fine concept that should be kept, but anyone who defends the current abuse of the idea is quite silly.

The filibuster should be reserved for something that *really* matters, and it should take actual effort to do in order to prevent its abuse. The current bull**** of effortless, anonymous filibusters is ridiculous. If it's something that matters so much to the minority, they should have no problem actually having to, you know, filibuster.

[peacepipe]

Hey,fed courts ruled against obamacare & how did that turn out.

[B-Large]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

This kind of partisan "torched earth" politics hasn't been seen in America since the Civil War. It's not something the founders would have agreed with in the slightest. It is ideologues using parliamentary procedure to block the will of the people from being done.

We're in the Era of the supermajority if you want to get anything significant done. Maybe that's a good thing short term as the United States approached 16T long-term debt and projected 10T by end of the Presidents Term. If people really want a siginificant change, i.e. healthcare reform in 2006- 2008, they will elect a supermajority of the party that can get it done- and even then 1 seat almost killed the entire effort.

To be honest, I would prefer the Federal Government get NOTHING passed until they can figure out a way to cut spending to match net taxes, or raise taxes to meet current spending- but this spend $1.00 and collect $75 cents from the public stuff is nonsense...

[elsid13]

As this case moves up the appeals court system this will be overturned.

[cutthemdown]

I think they are saying that calling a 10-20 day break by the Senate a recess is a reach. It could set the precedent where Presidents just wait for them to go on vacation then bypass Senate confirmation. Who knows then one may sneak a Supreme Court justice on the same way right? Courts have to consider the precedent it sets.

i'm surprised more liberals don't agree with the court to tell you the truth. This is nothing like the healthcare issue so i fail to see that comparison. Not sure it would be a good idea to say a 20 day break counts as a recess of the Senate and now you can just put whoever you want into a position. I don't think I would want repubs to be able to do that either. Thats how we keep checks and balances in.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by elsid13

As this case moves up the appeals court system this will be overturned.

On what legal point do you bas your prediction? Or are you just betting on Obama?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

On what legal point do you bas your prediction? Or are you just betting on Obama?

Do you actually think Obama is the first president to do a recess appointment under these same conditions.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

On what legal point do you bas your prediction? Or are you just betting on Obama?

Because of legal precedents that have indicant that President has the authority to appoint "Officers of the United States" under the Appointment Clause of the Constitution and the case Buckley vs. Valeo 424 , 118-43 U.S. 1 (1976).

I would argue that Labor Commission is consider a Lesser Officer and that their is role include the enforcement of laws which means the President has the ability to appoint them in a timely manner to ensure the laws and standards are upheld.

[Pony Boy]

It was "Abuse of Power" plain and simple and was a way for Obama to appoint 3 pro-union members to the board.



Obama’s NLRB pushes pro-union agenda

The National Labor Relations Board unleashed a raft of precedent-busting, pro-union decisions soon after President Barack Obama’s reelection in November.

The board’s three Democratic appointees issued rulings that weakened checks on union power, including two high-profile decisions forcing employers to automatically deduct union dues from worker paychecks when contract agreements expire and limiting the ability of employees to exercise their Beck rights.

“The board is an inherently political institution because it is made up of political appointees,” the Center for Union Facts’ managing director J. Justin Wilson said. “They are constantly overruling themselves. Unlike the Supreme Court, they do not like to overrule existing precedent.”

http://freebeacon.com/smashing-precedents/

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

This kind of partisan "torched earth" politics hasn't been seen in America since the Civil War. It's not something the founders would have agreed with in the slightest. It is ideologues using parliamentary procedure to block the will of the people from being done.

Or at least since 2007 when the Democratic Senate did the same thing to Bush. Man you've really got those indignation panties in a twist today.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Do you actually think Obama is the first president to do a recess appointment under these same conditions.

When the Senate specifically takes action to block an appointment but the President does it anyway? Can you name a time? Do you really want future Presidents to have that power. News flash. There will be another Republican President someday. I promise.

[cutthemdown]

The problem for the white house with the case will be that officially the Senate record has them in session. How will Obama get it ruled that the Senate was in recess when the Senate record says they were not?

I thought the Buckley Valeo case dealt with Campaign Contributions and the federal election commision? How does that set a precedent for this case Elsid?

[nyuk nyuk]

Surely these judges are wrong. After all, Dear Leader is a Constitutional scholar and lecturer! He knows exactly what he's doing. PLUS he's about transparency, a more trustworthy government, and stances against abuses of power!

He wouldn't do this! He was FRAMED!

All those Obama lovers back in the summer of 2008 who thought he was going to bring GW Bush up on war crimes charges are still faithfully waiting.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

This kind of partisan "torched earth" politics hasn't been seen in America since the Civil War. It's not something the founders would have agreed with in the slightest. It is ideologues using parliamentary procedure to block the will of the people from being done.

Bath salts?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Hey,fed courts ruled against obamacare & how did that turn out.

So you have no concern about the legality of what is going on here.

Why am I not surprised?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Or at least since 2007 when the Democratic Senate did the same thing to Bush. Man you've really got those indignation panties in a twist today.

A responsible minority party blocks the occasional nomination due to serious issues or conflicts that they believe are paramount to the operation of effective government. The current GOP actions shut down the most crucial appointments in following a strategy their leaders have devised, designed strictly to cripple the effectiveness of government in an orchestrated, ideological and partisan attack. In other words, it's an attack on the presidency itself which serves no other purpose than to weaken his administration and make him less effective for political advantage. It follows the basic Republican concept of "**** the country. Politics come first."

This is part of a larger confirmation crisis in the Senate: Republicans have blocked 223 of President Obama’s 1,132 executive and judicial appointees—over 20 percent. Republican senators have enforced a strict sixty-vote threshold for most nominations, and sometimes holds are placed on nominees anyhow. This hobbles crucial federal agencies and is yet another successful prong of the Republican war against effective government.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/161179...-gop-senators#

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The current GOP actions shut down the most crucial appointments in following a strategy their leaders have devised, designed strictly to cripple the effectiveness of government in an orchestrated, ideological and partisan attack. In other words, it's an attack on the presidency itself which serves no other purpose than to weaken his administration and make him less effective for political advantage.

Because it's not that Obama and his policies suck ass, but that the GOP are a bunch of meanies trying to block his splendid prowess in governance.

No, it's because Obama and his policies suck ass. Try a little harder to distinguish between blocking government effectiveness to blocking an incompetent left-wing moonbat with a left-wing moonbat agenda.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by B-Large

Its the design of the United States government, specifically making it very hard to get **** done.... its probably a good thing in the end

It is a good thing. They had immediately reversed a atleast 6 decades old ruling about unions having to have a majority of total folks in a union election say nay to block organization request.

Before it was they had to have 50% plus one vote of all eligible members. Thus those that did not wish to vote at all would be counted as a nay vote.

They immediately changed the rule to be 50% + 1 of those that voted.

Which would normally be fair but then the union organizers rammed through a bunch of elections before the potential members had a chance to understand the rules. They had been down this road before and their lack of a vote was counted as nay. So loads of employees did not understand the rule change and did not vote.

There were other changes to the board which should be NEUTRAL in all elections To one that is pro union. We all know he did this to pay back all the union bosses that gave him money.



This reversal is a very good thing for folks that DO NOT WANT TO give their hard earned money to thugs and racketeers who in turn fund sleazy campaigns. Without their approval.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Because it's not that Obama and his policies suck ass, but that the GOP are a bunch of meanies trying to block his splendid prowess in governance.

No, it's because Obama and his policies suck ass. Try a little harder to distinguish between blocking government effectiveness to blocking an incompetent left-wing moonbat with a left-wing moonbat agenda.

IIRC the current congress learned that trick form the dumocratic ons in the past that refused to hold hearings or approve of Bushes nominees.

It is a real b itch when something comes around full circle.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

So you have no concern about the legality of what is going on here.

Why am I not surprised?

That's what the SCOTUS is going to decide.