Obama's labor relations board appointment ruled unconstitutional

[Lovebears65]

Court: Obama appointments to labor panel are unconstitutional | Fox News

 

[Mr. H.]

Har.

 

[American_Jihad]

Court: Obama appointments to labor panel are unconstitutional

Published January 25, 2013
FoxNews.com


WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Obama violated the Constitution when he sidestepped the Senate to fill open spots on a labor relations panel, in a major setback for the president.

The suit had been brought by a local business in Washington state challenging the National Labor Relations Board. Supported by dozens of Senate Republicans, the case argued the president didn't have the power to make three appointments to the NLRB.

...

Read more: Court: Obama appointments to labor panel are unconstitutional | Fox News

 

[Mr. H.]

Har.

 

[AmyNation]

Merged

 

[Charles_Main]

I wonder if Obama is going to try something similar to F.D.R.'s court packing plan?
He is doing the same types of things that F.D.R. did.

He would need control of the house to do so. FDR controlled Both Houses when he tried, and his own Party saw how wrong it was, and stopped him.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you looked at all the vacancies of fed. Judges recently? I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but the volume of blocking appointees, not because you take issue with the person, but simply in order to annoy the President is turning into a serious issue.

I certainly take issue with appointing communists to be federal judges.

 

[AmyNation]

Have you looked at all the vacancies of fed. Judges recently? I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but the volume of blocking appointees, not because you take issue with the person, but simply in order to annoy the President is turning into a serious issue.

I certainly take issue with appointing communists to be federal judges.

And every appointee is a pinko commie? Did you read the link I provided, it talks about the process, and its not simply Obama picking names out of a hat.

 

[Rshermr]

Bound for the Supremes.

Rather than wasting our tax dollars on trivial shit why doesn't he just follow the proper channels?

Why does the Senate require 60 votes to confirm a post?

Not sure if your question is genuine. The reason is simple. Because it takes 60 votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster. And repubs have filibustered EVERYTHING.

 

[Rshermr]

Have you looked at all the vacancies of fed. Judges recently? I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but the volume of blocking appointees, not because you take issue with the person, but simply in order to annoy the President is turning into a serious issue.

I certainly take issue with appointing communists to be federal judges.

Bripat, you are a perfect example of what Jindal was talking about.

 

[Charles_Main]

The Idea that Obama "tried to reach across the Isle" is pure Horse shit. Obama is a master at crafting situations where it looks like he is trying, but in reality he has loaded a known deal breaker into the package. You fucking liberals who think he has tried to compromise are mentally ill or something.

 

[American_Jihad]

Merged

Yeahhh, finally your merging them instead of closing threads...

 

[AmyNation]

*takes a bow*

 

[BlindBoo]

Rather than wasting our tax dollars on trivial shit why doesn't he just follow the proper channels?

Why does the Senate require 60 votes to confirm a post?

Not sure if your question is genuine. The reason is simple. Because it takes 60 votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster. And repubs have filibustered EVERYTHING.

It was mostly rhetorical, however you do have the correct answer, because the Republicans filibuster nearly everything.

 

[The Rabbi]

USSC will not touch this. No reason to. The appointments were invalid. Everyone knew it. Typical over-reach by the amateur narcissist in chief.

Why will Obama not nominate people he knows can get through Congress? Why does he insist on getting radicals with thin resumes? Working across the aisle is a forgotten skill in this administration, although Biden still knows how to do it.

Because it doesn't matter who he nominates for a position. He could nominate a right wing nut job like Scalia and the Republicans would still block it. That's what Republicans do. This administration has tried over and over to work across party lines only to be rebuffed. They are supposed to advise and consent, not deny, block, obfuscate, and filibuster every appointment.

That's why Kagan's and Sotomaior's nominations failed?

You're a fucking tool.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Idea that Obama "tried to reach across the Isle" is pure Horse shit. Obama is a master at crafting situations where it looks like he is trying, but in reality he has loaded a known deal breaker into the package. You fucking liberals who think he has tried to compromise are mentally ill or something.

Salunski Tactics

The rules

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.




...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bound for the Supremes.

Not necessarily, they can simply let the ruling stand. There is no real need to take it up unless they feel a need to reverse a unanimous decision with no circuit conflicts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you looked at all the vacancies of fed. Judges recently? I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but the volume of blocking appointees, not because you take issue with the person, but simply in order to annoy the President is turning into a serious issue.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues here, but thanks for pointing out that you are a hack. Or did you forget that some of those appointments have been pending since Clinton was president?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

three threads on this already, hope they get merged but this is the oldest one.

I have to wonder if this is more grandstanding. This is how it looks to me;
Both houses of congress refuse to work together to accomplish anything. Our so-called leaders are no longer interested in actually accomplishing anything other than partisan bickering over the smallest issues. Is this a "bomb" that was intentionally planted by the republicans in congress?
If they would not approve any of the appointments, could the president have been forced into making these appointments in order to fill the posts he needed filled? Could the congressional republicans have intended that, thereby snapping the jaws shut on trap which would result in an unfavorable supreme court ruling?

I am not supporting Obama here. I am not happy with any of our so-called leaders right now. So dismiss the idea right now that I am defending Obama, or anyone else for that matter.

Grandstanding?

 

[AmyNation]

Have you looked at all the vacancies of fed. Judges recently? I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but the volume of blocking appointees, not because you take issue with the person, but simply in order to annoy the President is turning into a serious issue.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues here, but thanks for pointing out that you are a hack. Or did you forget that some of those appointments have been pending since Clinton was president?

It was asked why Obama wouldn't simply follow the proper channels, I was pointing out that there is a breakdown in the system and the proper channels no longer work properly. I also pointed out that while the problem is by no means new, it has reached new levels of ridiculous, but thanks for your wildly overdramatic response.