High court limits president's appointments power

[depotoo]

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 ....

According to who, now? A reporter? From what publication?

What this means, is exactly what it is supposed to mean. He needs to follow the Constitution, not his own version.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[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 ....

According to who, now? A reporter? From what publication?

What this means, is exactly what it is supposed to mean. He needs to follow the Constitution, not his own version.

or the republicans need to regain a majority in the senate ... or the ruling from the higher court over turns a much more significant ruling from the lower court.. or you're just an idiot ... you decide.

 

[Pennywise]

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.

You're a moron and a zealot. Can't do a thing about the former, see a shrink for the latter.

 

[depotoo]

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 ....

According to who, now? A reporter? From what publication?

What this means, is exactly what it is supposed to mean. He needs to follow the Constitution, not his own version.

or the republicans need to regain a majority in the senate ... or the ruling from the higher court over turns a much more significant ruling from the lower court.. or you're just an idiot ... you decide.

No, the way I see it, is the Constitution triumphed. I want both sides to be held accountable equally.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.”"

Supreme Court deals blow to Obama on recess appointments | MSNBC


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

.

So the SC just re-wrote the constitution?

What if a future court decides that the needs the 2nd Amendment was designed to fill no longer exists? What-cha gonna do then?


Ronald Reagan made 232 recess appointments during his eight years in office. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each made well more than 100. In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt made more than 160 recess appointments during one short break between congressional sessions.

To date, Obama has made only 32 recess appointments.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.”"

Supreme Court deals blow to Obama on recess appointments | MSNBC


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

.

So the SC just re-wrote the constitution?

What if a future court decides that the needs the 2nd Amendment was designed to fill no longer exists? What-cha gonna do then?


Ronald Reagan made 232 recess appointments during his eight years in office. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each made well more than 100. In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt made more than 160 recess appointments during one short break between congressional sessions.

To date, Obama has made only 32 recess appointments.

Where/ what section was re-written?? SHOW US.

 

[Sallow]

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 Hilarity continues.

I wonder if Scalia will issue this is a "one time, emergency decision, only to be used in this one case and never to be used as precedence regarding a Republican President".

 

[BlindBoo]

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.”"

Supreme Court deals blow to Obama on recess appointments | MSNBC


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

.

So the SC just re-wrote the constitution?

What if a future court decides that the needs the 2nd Amendment was designed to fill no longer exists? What-cha gonna do then?


Ronald Reagan made 232 recess appointments during his eight years in office. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each made well more than 100. In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt made more than 160 recess appointments during one short break between congressional sessions.

To date, Obama has made only 32 recess appointments.

Where/ what section was re-written?? SHOW US.

"The need [the recess appointments clause] was designed to fill no longer exists"

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

What's to stop future courts from deciding others needs the Constitution was designed to fill "no longer exist".

 

[Moonglow]

it is a shame the the GOP is crippling our government by blocking appointees...

 

[Siete]

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.”"

Supreme Court deals blow to Obama on recess appointments | MSNBC


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

.

So the SC just re-wrote the constitution?

What if a future court decides that the needs the 2nd Amendment was designed to fill no longer exists? What-cha gonna do then?


Ronald Reagan made 232 recess appointments during his eight years in office. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each made well more than 100. In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt made more than 160 recess appointments during one short break between congressional sessions.

To date, Obama has made only 32 recess appointments.

Where/ what section was re-written?? SHOW US.

try reading the article

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

So the SC just re-wrote the constitution?

What if a future court decides that the needs the 2nd Amendment was designed to fill no longer exists? What-cha gonna do then?


Ronald Reagan made 232 recess appointments during his eight years in office. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each made well more than 100. In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt made more than 160 recess appointments during one short break between congressional sessions.

To date, Obama has made only 32 recess appointments.

Where/ what section was re-written?? SHOW US.

"The need [the recess appointments clause] was designed to fill no longer exists"

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

What's to stop future courts from deciding others needs the Constitution was designed to fill "no longer exist".

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3

Come again?

 

[Siete]

Where/ what section was re-written?? SHOW US.

"The need [the recess appointments clause] was designed to fill no longer exists"

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

What's to stop future courts from deciding others needs the Constitution was designed to fill "no longer exist".

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3

Come again?

the lower court ruling prior to the current ruling DID NOT give that authority to ANY president. ... for all you constitutionalists out there

 

[The Rabbi]

it is a shame the the GOP is crippling our government by blocking appointees...

Why didnt you say the same when the Democrats blocked most of Bush's appointments?

 

[BlindBoo]

Where/ what section was re-written?? SHOW US.

"The need [the recess appointments clause] was designed to fill no longer exists"

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

What's to stop future courts from deciding others needs the Constitution was designed to fill "no longer exist".

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3

Come again?

"The need [the recess appointments clause] was designed to fill no longer exists"

That what Scalia wrote about it. What's to stop future courts from using that same logic on other clauses to the Constitution and it's Amendments?

 

[Ibentoken]

Wow. The USSC is racist.

 

[Zander]

I just read that this is the 12th unanimous SCOTUS decision to go against Obama. Wow.

He's the worlds dumbest Constitutional professor......

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I found nothing to support what's being said about "the need"

The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause | Tenth Amendment Center


Great article by someone who wrote a book on the Recess Clause and found himself in disagreement with George Bush when it went to court .. Non partisan and clearly objective

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The Recess Appointments Clause provides that “[t]he President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

 

[BlindBoo]

it is a shame the the GOP is crippling our government by blocking appointees...

Why didnt you say the same when the Democrats blocked most of Bush's appointments?

Bush made more than 170 recess appointments.

Of course St. Raygun has him beat with 240.