SCOTUS Slaps Down Obama Recess Appointments

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

The lawless Professor of constitutional law gets his comeuppance:



High court rules against Obama on recess appointments
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 1:07 p.m. EDT June 26, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the powers of the presidency Thursday, ruling decisively that President Obama violated the Constitution by going around the Senate to name key labor relations watchdogs.

Resolving a long-standing battle between the two other branches of government, the justices declared invalid key "recess appointments" made by Obama in 2012 when the Senate was holding only pro-forma sessions every three days.

But the majority opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer did not go further and limit recess appointments to remote periods and circumstances, as a federal appeals court had ruled last year. It said simply that three days is not long enough to qualify as a recess; 10 days, it said, would be more like it.

"Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the president made the recess appointments before us during a break too short to count as recess," Breyer said. "For that reason, the appointments are invalid." He was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...BlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

Fixed your post.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama-Hitler scares libs too.

 

[cjh]

so he waited three days instead of ten when there's been no guidance as to what constitutes a recess.

boy, if that's not bad faith, i don't know what is.

that lower appeals court--the one that limited recess appointments to "remote periods and circumstances"--needs a refresher course in constitutional law.

the obvious answer is ten days.

not three days.

not remote periods and circumstances.

ten days.

hell, all they had to do was ask vette. i am sure he would have said, "ten days."

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's a silly rule but a rule nonetheless.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

I think it was a 9-0 vote. We argued here that only the Senate decides when it is in session, not the President, but up went the partisan howl of all of the dim witted Libs here in defense of the President's dictatorial action. Damn shameful indicator of their useless education.

so did the supreme court hold that only the senate decides when it is in session?

Hello?

Is that what the opinion says?

 

[unregistered]

 

[nowisthetime]

Obama-Hitler scares libs too.

I look at it as a sign of stupidity whenever someone puts Obama and Hitler in the same sentence.

 

[Wrong Element]

Your partner in slime had this 4 hours ago.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think it was a 9-0 vote. We argued here that only the Senate decides when it is in session, not the President, but up went the partisan howl of all of the dim witted Libs here in defense of the President's dictatorial action. Damn shameful indicator of their useless education.

Sure. If they didn't shorten his chain a few links they knew he'd be making SCOTUS decisions nights and weekends. Theyre on to him.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

so he waited three days instead of ten when there's been no guidance as to what constitutes a recess.

boy, if that's not bad faith, i don't know what is.

that lower appeals court--the one that limited recess appointments to "remote periods and circumstances"--needs a refresher course in constitutional law.

the obvious answer is ten days.

not three days.

not remote periods and circumstances.

ten days.

hell, all they had to do was ask vette. i am sure he would have said, "ten days."

Its toast, Junior. 9-0. You lose.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think it was a 9-0 vote. We argued here that only the Senate decides when it is in session, not the President, but up went the partisan howl of all of the dim witted Libs here in defense of the President's dictatorial action. Damn shameful indicator of their useless education.

And we were wrong and you were right.

The Senate has the right to make it's own rules. Obama's Solicitor General, in January said, “The definition of recess is when no business shall be conducted. And that’s exactly what the Senate said,”

Three appellate courts disagreed, saying the President cannot tell the Senate when it is in session. The SCOTUS 9-0 affirmed, saying:

“The Clause does not say how long a recess must be in order to fall within the Clause, but even the solicitor general concedes that a 3-day recess would be too short.”

Which implies that Obama's huge sin was not waiting long enough for something that nobody knows how long is long enough. That's not so much Obama being stupid as him taking a stab a bit too soon.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Your partner in slime had this 4 hours ago.

They're tag-teaming to flood the board in order to get the sting of the McDaniel Tea Party defeat off the front page.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's for damn sure. He thinks he's a fucking king.

You sure do whine a lot for a purported "Marine".

 

[nowisthetime]

You sure do whine a lot for a purported "Marine".

Funny how all the right wingers want to brag about being in the military, bunch of liars.

I doubt the cheeto eating, broke Klansman is a "Marine".

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

I suspect the SCOTUS is a little tired of the Stalinists Obama appoints. They've already thrown out over 1000 decisions made by the NLRB with only two members sitting. The NLRB was forced to re-open more than a hundred previously decided cases.

That's not their call, if you truly believe that's what happened you should be ashamed of them right now.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Dyslexicea]

I suspect the SCOTUS is a little tired of the Stalinists Obama appoints. They've already thrown out over 1000 decisions made by the NLRB with only two members sitting. The NLRB was forced to re-open more than a hundred previously decided cases.

They would have had to have been just as tired of President Bush's Stalinist's tactics, as he made the same kind of recess appointments, sadly no one challenged those. I fail to see how you all seem to think this is a loss for President Obama, any more than any other past president who did the same thing. What it really is a win for us Americans, all of us not just you Obama haters.

The true reason both Presidents violated the Constitution is not without reason. As long as the Senate fails to act Constitutionally and Advice and consent, instead of delay and filibuster our government well remain crippled. We the American people deserve better and we are not getting it from either the Republicans or the Democrats, they both hold equal guilt. You can make this all you want about I hate Obama but what you should be doing is demanding the Senate does what the Constitution, the one all you haters seem to love, says and acts in a responsible manner and actually Advice and Consent, which simple mean discuss the nominee, vote on the nomination and approve or disapprove.

All you conservative may dance in jubilee as the Republicans obstruct the Constitution but when the time comes and the shoe is on the other foot you all are going to scream bloody murder forgetting you condoned the behavior in the first place.

This may be one small victory but the truth is unless all of us, conservatives, liberals and progressive, stop allowing both the Senate and House to act as irresponsibly as they've been doing the wonderful ship the United States of America is going to sink.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The constitutional guarantee of a "republican form of government" precludes a king and the establishment of un-democratic fiefdoms. You should be ashamed of yourself for helping Obama's cast his cloak of tyranny over the American civil society.

No it doesn't.