I guess he's not a king after all. At least not yet.
In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al that President Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. The president's excuse at the time was that the Senate was 'in recess' when it actually wasn't, but he simply pushed the appointments through anyway.
The senate sued, and today's ruling was the result.
In a real slap in the face, the majority opinion was written by the most left-leaning justice on the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. A concurring opinion written by Antonin Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length. A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House under that Clause is not long enough to trigger the President's recess-appointment power."
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.
Apparently even the left-leaning justices on the court are worried about this president's lawless behavior and disregard for the Constitution he swore to uphold.
7 comments:
it's the supreme court.
who cares?
Obama has made 32 recess appointments.
Reagan made 232
Bush made 171
W made 78
If Obama is a 'king' that you hold in contempt, then Reagan must be the devil.
Seriously these are facts that everyone who doesn't watch Fox News knows or can easily google. Besides louielouiue, how exactly do you think you're fooling? I really don't understand why you would want to put yourself out on the internet as either willfully stupid or blatantly dishonest unless you enjoy the embarrassment. Stick to Israel. Your understanding of the American political system and basic American history is not your strong suit.
um, oabama has used the recess appointment the least of any president. i seriously don't understand your point here. seems that the supreme court just gave the democrats a huge victory. and you call it 'a slap in the face'??? if there's ever another republican president (highly doubtful), they won't be able to act like kings anymore. i'm a liberal and i'm celebrating this one.
Um, Anonymous 1 &2, obviously understanding facts aren't your strong point. But since you're ObamaBots, that's to be expected.
The SCOTUS ruling didn't make recess appointments illegal, nor should they have done so. They made OBAMA'S 'recess' appointments illegal because they weren't done when Congress was in recess.
President Reagan and both President Bushes made their recess appointments legally in accordance with our Constitution...when congress was in recess.
Bammy didn't and insisted on pushing them through even when it was pointed out to him that he was breaking the law. That's what you support? Lawlessness and contempt for the Constitution?
And you have the nerve to talk about how I 'don't understand' something?
Pathetic.
BTW, while we're at it, the reason President Reagan and both Bushes had to make so many recess appointments was because they had Democrat run congresses for part of their administrations who were bent on total obstructionism.
Bammy had a Democrat rubber stamp for his entire first term, and it shows in the abysmal quality of the people he was able to shove into office with the Democrat's connivance. That's why there have been so few.
Comments like these are one reason I'm considering dropping anonymous comments and making people register, so people will have to be more accountable when they embarrass themselves like this.
Please try and actually read the articles and then make comments that actually add to the board, if it's possible.
No, you're still confused.
Obama's appointments were made during pro forma sessions - also known as sham sessions so that presidents technically can't appoint while congress is away. The democrats did the same thing to Bush.
Literally the only difference here is that Obama is the first president to be call the republican's bluff. God knows who Bush would have rammed through if not for the pro forma sessions.
The fact still stands that Obama has only done a handful of recess appointments when compared to his predecessors and the republicans had no problem with a president evading the pro forma sessions until President Blackenstein was in power. Calling him a 'king' when every other president has tried the same tactic is dishonest and just stupid, frankly. Every news outlet (even Fox, surprisingly) is calling this what it is: a win for the democrats.
Your even more clueless than I thought. The appointments by the presidents you mentioned (and even Clinton's 139) were legal because they were done when Congress was in recess. Bush's appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador is a good example. Congress had officially declared itself in recess.
That's why even the Democrats didn't bother opposing it and Republicans didn;t oppose Clinton's.
Bammy's were done when congress had NOT declared itself in recess, just because he thought he could.Of course, to someone with your warped and distorted perspective, this, like everything else is all about race.
Which makes you a ra=aaa=aacist, doesn't it?
And the 'win' you're talking about? That's because the justices wisely and properly chose to hear National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al and not another lower court decision that was 5-4 and would have banned all recess appointments.
I call that a win for the Constitution. Obviously, like this president, you hold that in contempt.
And you have the nerve to call anyone else stupid?
My, my.
Post a Comment