High court limits president's appointments power

[MarcATL]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

Imo it's the right ruling, but it is also one of those be careful what you wish for. If congress can essentially say "we're never in recess" this will come back to haunt a gop potus.

Exactly!

These rabid far RWers only see what's directly in front of their faces.

The tables turn eventually, and many years down the road, whenever they manage to scrape up an electable candidate, they'll by crying over the Democrat obstruction of the President's appointments.

 

[bendog]

Well, they've written in MORE gridlock into the law.

I hope the American People are paying attention.

Vote in the midterms or we'll have more and more RW Supreme Court Judges and law-making like Citizen United.

I wish more American citizens paid attention and voted, every time it's possible.

Exactly. The constitution is premised upon the belief that reasonable people will reach a compromise. The scotus just upheld that premise. It's not the judiciary's role to declare a winner when there's a failure to compromise. Hopefully, this same rationale will apply to any suit Boehner brings. It's this conservative view of "judicial restraint.'

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

Imo it's the right ruling, but it is also one of those be careful what you wish for. If congress can essentially say "we're never in recess" this will come back to haunt a gop potus.

Exactly!

These rabid far RWers only see what's directly in front of their faces.

The tables turn eventually, and many years down the road, whenever they manage to scrape up an electable candidate, they'll by crying over the Democrat obstruction of the President's appointments.

Democratic Hypocrisy - Op-Eds - Press Office - Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah


SAY WHAT?? You Zombies already did it to Bush.. lol

 

[hangover]

...and who limits the SCOTUS power? Since SCOTUS can overrule the POTUS and congress, SCOTUS must be the supreme dictator. Money is speech, corporations are people, the Supreme dictator decrees.

 

[rightwinger]

I agree with the Supreme Court but do not think they went far enough

ALL recess appointments should be banned. The President should not be able to sidestep Congress when they are not in session
In addition, Congress should not be allowed to block appointments without voting on them. Once the President sends appointments to Congress, they should have 30 days to act. After that time the appointments should become valid

 

[bendog]

...and who limits the SCOTUS power? Since SCOTUS can overrule the POTUS and congress, SCOTUS must be the supreme dictator. Money is speech, corporations are people, the Supreme dictator decrees.

There's the rub. However, Citizens United also said congress can force the people who fund independent ads to disclose themselves. Neither party is eager to do that, though.

 

[depotoo]

Imo it's the right ruling, but it is also one of those be careful what you wish for. If congress can essentially say "we're never in recess" this will come back to haunt a gop potus. And I realize the OP simply repeats the title from the media, but it's not really accurate. The ruling does not cut back on exec power. Rather, it was the scotus saying it wasn't getting involved between congress and the exec. If congress says it's not in recess, then it's not in recess. Congress had not done this in the past. The Court just said we aren't telling you that you can't do it.

You are right, the article title could have been better labeled, such as "Supreme Court Says President Overreached His Executive Power".

 

[BobPlumb]

...and who limits the SCOTUS power? Since SCOTUS can overrule the POTUS and congress, SCOTUS must be the supreme dictator. Money is speech, corporations are people, the Supreme dictator decrees.

Amendments to the constitution override the SCOTUS power, but it takes a lot to do that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good call.

 

[blastoff]

Wooohooo LMAO Listen to Dan Rather up there saying it was a minor mistake.. HE USURPED THE US CONSTITUTION .. but you go ahead and puff on his pony.

Provide a detailed explanation and analysis on exactly how President Obama "usurped the US Constitution" in the matter of NLRB recess appointments using not less than 200 words or I will be forced to assume that your post is nothing more than you regurgitating talking points on issues you don't even bother to try to understand.

So the Chief Executive didn't know the Constitution??? I thought he taught Constitutional law at Harvard?

1. He did know it, as evidenced by his arguments in favor of his actions.

2. As the article states, this is the FIRST AND ONLY case the Supreme Court has tried that dealt with the recess appointment clause.

You'd know both of these things if you'd bother to read the article.

The Senate sets its own rules, including when it is in session or recess.
Obama made recess appointments while the Senate was in session.
The appointments are invalid, Obama exceeded his authority.
QED.

Ooops...teacher's gonna give you a big fat F. You're 160-something words short of the required 200. Probably make you clean the blackboards or something after class too.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree with the Supreme Court but do not think they went far enough

ALL recess appointments should be banned. The President should not be able to sidestep Congress when they are not in session
In addition, Congress should not be allowed to block appointments without voting on them. Once the President sends appointments to Congress, they should have 30 days to act. After that time the appointments should become valid

You'd have to amend the COnstitution to do that. Good luck.

 

[Decus]

The Supreme Court ruled that the president's actions were unconstitutional:

"President Obama’s attempt to make appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was still technically in session was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday."

The verdict was 9-0. Scalia said in presenting the opinion of the court that:

"“The need [the recess appointments clause] was designed to fill no longer exists, and its only remaining use is the ignoble one of enabling the president to circumvent the Senate’s role in the appoint*ment process,” Scalia wrote, adding that the majority opinion would ”have the effect of aggrandizing the presidency beyond its constitutional bounds and undermining respect for the separation of powers.”"

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-supreme-court-recess-appointments


Obama is a constitutional lawyer.....really?.....too funny.

.

 

[Zander]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

It was not "procedural error" and there was no "confusion" about the rule. Obama was frustrated and attempted an end run around Congress.

It's a victory for separation of powers.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's really the SC giving future Congresses the ability to block recess appointments by holding pro-forma cessions. Pretending to be in session specifically to deny the President the ability to make recess appointments. Funny part is it was the Democrats who first tried this tactic. But the point is moot now that the Senate has changed its rules.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

It was not "procedural error" and there was no "confusion" about the rule. Obama was frustrated and attempted an end run around Congress.

It's a victory for separation of powers.

Yes it is!

 

[Siete]

from the article..

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. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running.

Still, the outcome was the least significant loss possible for the administration. The justices, by a 5-4 vote, rejected a sweeping lower court ruling against the administration that would have made it virtually impossible for any future president to make recess appointments.
``````````````````


while the morons are busy slobbering "upsurp", they missed " least significant loss possible " ... why not? they're not significant either.

carry on ....

 

[depotoo]

Wooohooo LMAO Listen to Dan Rather up there saying it was a minor mistake.. HE USURPED THE US CONSTITUTION .. but you go ahead and puff on his pony.

Provide a detailed explanation and analysis on exactly how President Obama "usurped the US Constitution" in the matter of NLRB recess appointments using not less than 200 words or I will be forced to assume that your post is nothing more than you regurgitating talking points on issues you don't even bother to try to understand.

So the Chief Executive didn't know the Constitution??? I thought he taught Constitutional law at Harvard?

1. He did know it, as evidenced by his arguments in favor of his actions.

2. As the article states, this is the FIRST AND ONLY case the Supreme Court has tried that dealt with the recess appointment clause.

You'd know both of these things if you'd bother to read the article.

Kitten, my, my, my, what a tizzy you seem to be in over this decision. Your political operatives are mad, aren't they? They can't believe the Supreme Court doesn't see your boss as the ultimate authority that you want him to be.
I bet they are really fuming over the buffer zone issue. You see, you seem to think your rights should trump all others. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Fortunately our founders knew just what they were doing.

And just a reminder, this is MY thread, not yours. Now, run along and start your own thread, and be sure to list it under education along with your bullet points. Hopefully you can find others to play teacher/student with you there. Don't hold your breath, though.

 

[Zander]

It's really the SC giving future Congresses the ability to block recess appointments by holding pro-forma cessions. Pretending to be in session specifically to deny the President the ability to make recess appointments. Funny part is it was the Democrats who first tried this tactic. But the point is moot now that the Senate has changed its rules.

The democrats seem to think they will remain in power forever. They change rules then cry like little ***** when those same rule changes burn them....

I hope that after the Republicans take back the Senate in November, that they have the courage to nuke Harry Reid's rule changes regarding filibusters and require a 2/3's Super majority to ever change them again.....but they probably won't......they want retribution. They're as cunty as the Dems......

 

[Kondor3]

A minor procedural mistake...

A minor procedural mistake that required the intervention of the Supreme Court of the United States, to overturn...

The President is both a lawyer himself, and is surrounded by a veritable army of lawyers with expertise in Constitutional Law, all of whom knew better.

Who-the-heck do you think you're kidding?

You're not going to fool the American People again, that much is clear.

Minor procedural error?

Not.

 

[Kondor3]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

It was not "procedural error" and there was no "confusion" about the rule. Obama was frustrated and attempted an end run around Congress.

It's a victory for separation of powers.