Court Rules Obama ‘Recess’ Appointments Unconstitutional!

[Wehrwolfen]

Court nullifies Obama appointments to Labor Board​

by: Special to PeoplesWorld.org
January 25 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled today that President Obama violated the Constitution when he made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last January.

The Obama Administration is expected to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court but if the Appeals Court decision is upheld, some fear that it would violate all decisions that the National Labor relations Board has made since last January.

The NLRB itself and the White House are saying, however, that this will not be the case.

"This court decision does not effect this operation, their (the NLRB's) ability to function," White House press secretary Jay Carney told the press today.

The Appeals Court in D.C. said that the President did not have the power to bypass the Senate and make the appointments.

The labor movement reacted quickly to the ruling with outright condemnation.

"Today's decision by a panel of Republican judges on the DC Circuit is nothing less than shocking," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement, adding that he fully expects "this radical decision to be reversed, and that other courts addressing thjs issue will uphold the President's appointment authority."

The labor movement is concerned about GOP attempts to cripple the NLRB because the board has traditionally been an important avenue used by workers in response to corporate attacks on their right to organize, among other rights at the workplace. The board came into existence in the 1930's as part of the Wagner Act and was charged by Congress at that time with guaranteeing that companies adhered to labor law. The Wagner Act under which the NLRB was created spelled out specifically that it is the policy of the United States Government to encourage collective bargaining.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Court nullifies Obama appointments to Labor Board » peoplesworld

 

[Publius1787]

You're right. That's what I said and you got me there.

So...show me how OBAMA can bully the courts? Better yet, show me how he has.

I never made that argument. Why would I allow you to put words in my mouth as to define an argument that I have never made. Nevertheless, the only time I can remember of Obama coming close to bullying the court can be found here. Obama Criticizes Supreme Court in State of the Union Address, Justice Alito Shakes His Head in - YouTube

Obama is criticizing the Citizen United ruling here, a ruling we all agree is way fucked. I hardly see what he said as bullying

I didn't say it was bullying. Can anyone here read? And you all think your qualified to comment on legal matters?

 

[Publius1787]

Court nullifies Obama appointments to Labor Board​

by: Special to PeoplesWorld.org
January 25 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled today that President Obama violated the Constitution when he made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last January.

The Obama Administration is expected to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court but if the Appeals Court decision is upheld, some fear that it would violate all decisions that the National Labor relations Board has made since last January.

The NLRB itself and the White House are saying, however, that this will not be the case.

"This court decision does not effect this operation, their (the NLRB's) ability to function," White House press secretary Jay Carney told the press today.

The Appeals Court in D.C. said that the President did not have the power to bypass the Senate and make the appointments.

The labor movement reacted quickly to the ruling with outright condemnation.

"Today's decision by a panel of Republican judges on the DC Circuit is nothing less than shocking," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement, adding that he fully expects "this radical decision to be reversed, and that other courts addressing thjs issue will uphold the President's appointment authority."

The labor movement is concerned about GOP attempts to cripple the NLRB because the board has traditionally been an important avenue used by workers in response to corporate attacks on their right to organize, among other rights at the workplace. The board came into existence in the 1930's as part of the Wagner Act and was charged by Congress at that time with guaranteeing that companies adhered to labor law. The Wagner Act under which the NLRB was created spelled out specifically that it is the policy of the United States Government to encourage collective bargaining.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Court nullifies Obama appointments to Labor Board » peoplesworld

It doesent affect the NLRB's ability to function? That's not what they will argue before the Supreme Court! Nevertheless, this isn't the first time the Obama admin ignored a court ruling. See here >>> U.S. in Contempt Over Gulf Drill Ban, Judge Rules - Bloomberg . Furthermore, even if the NLRB continues after a ruling of unconstitutionality absent of a stay, those subject to the rules, regulations, and rulings, under the perioud referenced can just ignore the NLRB without repercussion. This is because the government will lose that court battle all day long!

You really get your news from the Marxist "People's World?"

 

[Oldguy]

HUH?

Do you understand what you read?

Did Mark Gaston Pearce, act without consulting his boss?

Probably. The President doesn't micro-manage the government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A strong executive....hilarious...Cheney is most likely on Obama's side as are others who support a strong executive

 

[Oldguy]

Wrong. The Government must request a stay pending further litigation. With a 3-0 opinion against Obama, a stay is less likely than usual but will still more than likely be granted. Nevertheless, without a stay the NLRB appointees cannot continue to work as appointed even if 100 courts say they can and only one court says they can't.


stay - Legal Definition

The government must request a stay of what? The court ruled on a specific case which came before the Board and overturned that case. Unless I missed something, that's all they did.

Yep , you did miss something


"The decision will effectively shut the NLRB down, because only the Chairman, Mark Gaston Pearce would remain as a constitutionally-appointed member. The two remaining NLRB appointees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, both recess appointees, would have to either submit to the Senate confirmation process or step down. (A third appointee, Terrence Flynn, has since stepped down.) The five-member board requires at least three members to provide a quorum and act."

COURT ORDER HERE

.


.

No, I meant did I miss something in the Court's ruling. I'll look at it again tomorrow.

 

[Contumacious]

HUH?

Do you understand what you read?

Did Mark Gaston Pearce, act without consulting his boss?

Probably. The President doesn't micro-manage the government.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fLqTdvLWk5k"] The President doesn't micro-manage the government?[/ame]

.

 

[Publius1787]

The government must request a stay of what? The court ruled on a specific case which came before the Board and overturned that case. Unless I missed something, that's all they did.

Yep , you did miss something


"The decision will effectively shut the NLRB down, because only the Chairman, Mark Gaston Pearce would remain as a constitutionally-appointed member. The two remaining NLRB appointees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, both recess appointees, would have to either submit to the Senate confirmation process or step down. (A third appointee, Terrence Flynn, has since stepped down.) The five-member board requires at least three members to provide a quorum and act."

COURT ORDER HERE

.


.

No, I meant did I miss something in the Court's ruling. I'll look at it again tomorrow.

The only things you need to know.

Unconstitutional = injunction
Unconstitutionality = all rulings, regulations, and rules erased over this time frame.
-2 NLRB board members = no authority to function

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wrong. The Government must request a stay pending further litigation. With a 3-0 opinion against Obama, a stay is less likely than usual but will still more than likely be granted. Nevertheless, without a stay the NLRB appointees cannot continue to work as appointed even if 100 courts say they can and only one court says they can't.


stay - Legal Definition

The government must request a stay of what? The court ruled on a specific case which came before the Board and overturned that case. Unless I missed something, that's all they did.

The court specifically ruled that his actions were unconstitutional. The ruling of unconstitutional is a default injunction! The NLRB can ignore it if they whish without a stay, however, those who are subject to their rules and regulations can ignore the NLRB as well. So as long as the current status of those appointees remain unconstitutional, so are any rules, rulings, and regulations they came up with. And no court in the country will say otherwise. I for one, doubt the Supreme Court will take it up. I think that even the liberal justices will allow this ruling to remain. Unless, of course, an equal court rules otherwise.

Is this your final answer?

 

[Publius1787]

The government must request a stay of what? The court ruled on a specific case which came before the Board and overturned that case. Unless I missed something, that's all they did.

The court specifically ruled that his actions were unconstitutional. The ruling of unconstitutional is a default injunction! The NLRB can ignore it if they whish without a stay, however, those who are subject to their rules and regulations can ignore the NLRB as well. So as long as the current status of those appointees remain unconstitutional, so are any rules, rulings, and regulations they came up with. And no court in the country will say otherwise. I for one, doubt the Supreme Court will take it up. I think that even the liberal justices will allow this ruling to remain. Unless, of course, an equal court rules otherwise.

Is this your final answer?

No, strike the second "unconstitutional" and replace it with "constitutionality." now that my editing is done ... ... ...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The last word will be from the Supreme Court

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The court specifically ruled that his actions were unconstitutional. The ruling of unconstitutional is a default injunction! The NLRB can ignore it if they whish without a stay, however, those who are subject to their rules and regulations can ignore the NLRB as well. So as long as the current status of those appointees remain unconstitutional, so are any rules, rulings, and regulations they came up with. And no court in the country will say otherwise. I for one, doubt the Supreme Court will take it up. I think that even the liberal justices will allow this ruling to remain. Unless, of course, an equal court rules otherwise.

While the Administration has promised to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court...

Court Slaps Down Obama On NLRB Appointments-Decision Could Invalidate Hundreds Of Labor Decisions - Forbes


Doesn't the Supreme Court usually fats track any disputes between branches of government when asked to intervene?

 

[Publius1787]

The court specifically ruled that his actions were unconstitutional. The ruling of unconstitutional is a default injunction! The NLRB can ignore it if they whish without a stay, however, those who are subject to their rules and regulations can ignore the NLRB as well. So as long as the current status of those appointees remain unconstitutional, so are any rules, rulings, and regulations they came up with. And no court in the country will say otherwise. I for one, doubt the Supreme Court will take it up. I think that even the liberal justices will allow this ruling to remain. Unless, of course, an equal court rules otherwise.

While the Administration has promised to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court...

Court Slaps Down Obama On NLRB Appointments-Decision Could Invalidate Hundreds Of Labor Decisions - Forbes


Doesn't the Supreme Court usually fats track any disputes between branches of government when asked to intervene?

That depends on any number of scenarios.

 

[Publius1787]

The last word will be from the Supreme Court

I'm guessing that word will be in the form of "we refuse to hear the case; the lower court ruling stands." If not, however, it will likely be a 7-2 ruling against Obama. Even the liberal justices haven't lost that much integrity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The court specifically ruled that his actions were unconstitutional. The ruling of unconstitutional is a default injunction! The NLRB can ignore it if they whish without a stay, however, those who are subject to their rules and regulations can ignore the NLRB as well. So as long as the current status of those appointees remain unconstitutional, so are any rules, rulings, and regulations they came up with. And no court in the country will say otherwise. I for one, doubt the Supreme Court will take it up. I think that even the liberal justices will allow this ruling to remain. Unless, of course, an equal court rules otherwise.

While the Administration has promised to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court...

Court Slaps Down Obama On NLRB Appointments-Decision Could Invalidate Hundreds Of Labor Decisions - Forbes


Doesn't the Supreme Court usually fats track any disputes between branches of government when asked to intervene?

That depends on any number of scenarios.

Captain Obvious strikes again

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The last word will be from the Supreme Court

I'm guessing that word will be in the form of "we refuse to hear the case; the lower court ruling stands." If not, however, it will likely be a 7-2 ruling against Obama. Even the liberal justices haven't lost that much integrity.

since you are doing predictions:

Who did you predict would win the Presidential election in 2012 and what did you predict about the SCOTUS and Obamacare?

 

[Publius1787]

While the Administration has promised to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court...

Court Slaps Down Obama On NLRB Appointments-Decision Could Invalidate Hundreds Of Labor Decisions - Forbes


Doesn't the Supreme Court usually fats track any disputes between branches of government when asked to intervene?

That depends on any number of scenarios.

Captain Obvious strikes again

You wanted a dissertation? I could write a book on that subject alone.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That depends on any number of scenarios.

Captain Obvious strikes again

You wanted a dissertation? I could write a book on that subject alone.

Sure you could. Lots of terrible books hit the remainder shelves in a week

 

[Publius1787]

The last word will be from the Supreme Court

I'm guessing that word will be in the form of "we refuse to hear the case; the lower court ruling stands." If not, however, it will likely be a 7-2 ruling against Obama. Even the liberal justices haven't lost that much integrity.

since you are doing predictions:

Who did you predict would win the Presidential election in 2012 and what did you predict about the SCOTUS and Obamacare?

I predict the SCOTUS will go liberal for the next 20 or so years and the idea of constitutional limitations with respect to federal powers will be ignored in the opposite of what James Madison predicted in the last 4 paragraphs of Federalist no. 41. As far as the presidency is concerned I am going with Hillary should she be able to keep her health up.

With respect to my prediction of Obamacare, I said that there was no authority under the commerce clause and the Supreme Court agreed. You see, the government cannot tax inactivity. However, I also predicted that there was no taxing power that allowed for the individual mandate and the supreme court disagreed. This ruling, of course, makes no since because only a limited number of taxes are allowed under the U.S. Constitution (capitation, excise, etc...). The individual mandate falls under neither category of constitutional taxation. That and never in our history has the SCOTUS ruled that a penalty can reasonably be construed as a tax.

 

[Publius1787]

Captain Obvious strikes again

You wanted a dissertation? I could write a book on that subject alone.

Sure you could. Lots of terrible books hit the remainder shelves in a week

Yeah, I wouldn't read it either.