High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments

The Supreme Court has spoken and FINALLY...they have spoken a bit of sense into this nonsense of "recess appointments"! This has been cheesy and an end run around the system no matter WHICH President has done it, and this one just went a step too far with his. (story of his life lately, it seems)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama.

The court's first-ever case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess.

This is no small thing as it's been taken as a major power of the Presidency. Now, that power is in question as to how broad it is compared to how it's been.

In this case, Congress was playing games with their 'touch base' recess without being a recess. That means they aren't doing any business but gavel a session open and closed every 2-3 days to maintain the calender as in-session vs. out of session. Well, that technical issue mattered.

In this case, it defined the issue.

The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees.

But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB.

Source

As it notes, since Harry Reid invoked the "Nuclear Option" that we've heard discussed for years in the U.S. Senate, (which simply means appointments happen on a 51/49 majority instead of 2/3rds), it's not as important as it's always been. There used to be more than a rubber stamp by party line before that nuclear option was invoked within the Senate rules.

However, it's still important and it's yet another setback and slap to the assumption of power by a President that has no problem assuming quite a lot.

** News is also reporting that as invalid appointments, their actions since being appointed are likewise invalid. Interesting outcome here.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

This is well and good, but what does a president do when all of his appointments are blocked? That's what the GOP did and I assume is still doing to Obama's appointments. Over five years into his term and he still can't get some of those offices filled. This is so far from fair that you can't even see it on a clear day.

a reply to: Aleister


As I've been reading more on this decision, it's saying recess appointments are still perfectly valid but the President (whichever party that happens to be) cannot play games about how many days to how many required for calling a recess a recess for a technical 'gotcha' to appoint.

Again, I think Congress was playing a game at the same time....but as often happens in life? One side played the game further than the other this time and it determined which way the hand slap went, IMO.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

So...the supreme court is getting busy with the President...very interesting....

Boehner is getting busy too...line this morning: "Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power"

Link: www.foxnews.com...

Karma's a b*tch. When (if?) a Republican becomes president, you can bet the Dems will use this S.C. decision as precedent to stop him from making any appointments. They can play that game too. And they will. ... and the game of politics continues. You try to keep them from making any progress, and they try to keep you from making any progress. Meanwhile, no progress is made. Who really loses? We do.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Well, good and they'd better hold a Republican President to the same standards. Precisely the same. No less and not by an inch. Just because I've come to feel Obama is the worse thing since Carter doesn't mean I 'dig' much of what Bush did to us and he liked the recess appointment games too.

I think what this President AND the last one have worked together in order to create is a profound separation of powers crisis and one which we'll need to see sorted out. Given trends since about the 1992 election? Each is more extreme than the last ...so I don't care which party the next one is from. This expansion and assumption of power outside the lines just has to stop for the good of the whole Republic.

All sides of it.

originally posted by: caladonea
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

So...the supreme court is getting busy with the President...very interesting....

Boehner is getting busy too...line this morning: "Boehner plans to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power"

Link: www.foxnews.com...

Did they finally realize the fox is in the hen house?

a reply to: Aleister

Seems that the system is working how it was designed.

Don't see a problem, as Checks and Balances are operational then.


Maybe Lord 0bama should rethink his appointments.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I hope that all sides use it when applicable.

If it is good for one side, then it is good for the other.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

This is well and good, but what does a president do when all of his appointments are blocked? That's what the GOP did and I assume is still doing to Obama's appointments. Over five years into his term and he still can't get some of those offices filled. This is so far from fair that you can't even see it on a clear day.

Um try not loading every office in the land with extremists from the far left, and maybe some would get through.

Lets see here, who did he try to get through that wasnt a far left obama nazi that will rubber stamp everything he says?

That is right none.

Just because he is president doesnt mean he gets to place anyone he wants anywhere he wants.

That is the reason they have to be approved, so as to make sure they are not far either side, but closer to the middle.

Do you not understand how a republic works?

He isnt a king, he only gets to suggest not decide the appointments.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Karma's a b*tch. When (if?) a Republican becomes president, you can bet the Dems will use this S.C. decision as precedent to stop him from making any appointments. They can play that game too. And they will. ... and the game of politics continues. You try to keep them from making any progress, and they try to keep you from making any progress. Meanwhile, no progress is made. Who really loses? We do.

I disagree, they arent suppossed to be passing a thousand new laws a year, the entire structure was meant so that they would argue endlessly and nothing would happen, unless say we were attacked at which point there would be wide support from both sides.

Every law they pass is another freedom I lose.

I like it when both parties obstruct eachother, it means the people arent losing at the time.

The court's first-ever case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal.

Emphasize "illegal"

IMO, all these seemingly "little" violations by Obama & Co. are simple tests of the system.

They get away with what ever they can and do as much damage as possible.

A very arrogant attitude to a system they hate.

Checks & Balances rein supreme

a reply to: xuenchen

The court ruled unanimously that President Obama had violated the Constitution in 2012

and?

www.nytimes.com...

Did they finally realize the fox is in the hen house?

a reply to: Stormdancer777
It took them long enough to see that the Administration Of Transparency Was Transparently Crooked, when it came to investigated it's self and the implementation of policies and appointments of personnel to further their cause!

When a party gets to load the bureaucracy with too many people friendly to it, you get things like Lois Lerner and her little shenanigans.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

This is well and good, but what does a president do when all of his appointments are blocked? That's what the GOP did and I assume is still doing to Obama's appointments. Over five years into his term and he still can't get some of those offices filled. This is so far from fair that you can't even see it on a clear day.

It is their job to do the will of the people who elected them. In this case, keep Obama from putting more progressives in powerful positions. I'm sure if Obama chose a hard-core conservative for a position...they would accept them. But Obama has shown that he uses his alliances in various offices to do his bidding, break laws and attack citizens like his own, personal attack dogs. So why would the people that I helped elect allow him to appoint more dogs? They wouldn't, shouldn't and haven't. They are doing exactly what I helped vote them in to do.

So...if anyone wants to be pissed off about it...be pissed at me and all the rest of us that voted for them to do exactly what they are doing. The mentality today seems to be that we elect people to do whatever the hell they feel like doing...that is 100% incorrect. We elect them to do OUR will.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
This is well and good, but what does a president do when all of his appointments are blocked? That's what the GOP did and I assume is still doing to Obama's appointments. Over five years into his term and he still can't get some of those offices filled. This is so far from fair that you can't even see it on a clear day.

PS: "What does a president do?" was your question. Obey the f'ing law and suck it up. It happens because we demand it. Doesn't Obama have the balls to state the truth? "Right leaning Americans are stopping me from doing whatever the hell I want...and I don't like it, so I'm going to break the law".

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I think the most important thing here is the unanimous decision, even the liberal appointments to the bench voted the same. Thats like a full judicial body slam.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Even Judges tend to take ridicule poorly and the ones that were there to endure it never forgot being made asses of at the State of the Union speech. I have 0 doubt on that. These are lifers who will die or retire only because they chose to, from where they are now. Then this 4 year wonder happened along and made fools of them to the world ..and has kept poking at them at every opportunity. Oh...you're right. Even Obama friendly members voted against him on this one.

I think the 'Robed ones' have about had it with the elected upstart. After all...he's out in a couple years while they'll be working to clean this mess up for decades in a couple cases at least.

They're not happy campers in this change thing.

You do recognize that if "this one went too far" then the preceding 3 presidents must have gone ridiculously too far because Obama's recess appointments were fewer than the last 2 republican presidents? Hrrmmm...