High court limits president's appointments power

[Sallow]

(yawn) He made "recess appointments" when the Senate was not in recess....

The Senate was in recess.

When you lose the debate, lie. That seems to be sallow's technique here.

Supreme Court Limits President Obama's Appointment Powers - NationalJournal.com
In the view of the Court, as written by Breyer, "pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here."

Better luck next time.

Careful what you wish for, by the way. It's not always going to be a Democratic President.

No Republican President ever made a "recess appointment" when the Senate was in session.

Your disgruntled whining is cute.

Like I said.

Careful what you wish for..

Like the "filibuster" this might become the norm.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bush made more than 170 recess appointments.

Of course St. Raygun has him beat with 240.

Yes. And they were made while the Senate was actually on recess. Neither Bush nor Reagan had the audacity to proclaim the Senate out of session while they were having meetings and make recess appointments to avoid Senate confirmation.

So from now on Congress has the authority to usurp the Presidents Constitutional power by holding a one person phony session where no business is conducted every three days.
While all other members go home.

What goes around comes around.

So these are phoney meetings now?

The President doesn't have the authority to determine whether the Senate is in session or not. The Senate does.

And keep in mind this has been a Democrat controlled Senate

 

[Avatar4321]

The Senate was in recess.

When you lose the debate, lie. That seems to be sallow's technique here.

Supreme Court Limits President Obama's Appointment Powers - NationalJournal.com
In the view of the Court, as written by Breyer, "pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here."

Better luck next time.

Careful what you wish for, by the way. It's not always going to be a Democratic President.

No Republican President ever made a "recess appointment" when the Senate was in session.

Your disgruntled whining is cute.

Like I said.

Careful what you wish for..

Like the "filibuster" this might become the norm.

What do you mean might become the norm? The Senate has always had the ability to determine when it's in session or not. The President has never had that power.

It's not going to become the norm. It's been the norm for the past 200+ years.

 

[Sallow]

Kind of a no brainer on this one. Not surprised it's unanimous. The President doesn't have the right to declare the Senate out of session for the sole purpose of making illegal recess appointments.

And he was usurping the Constitution by trying to appoint people without Senate confirmation while the Senate was in session

The filibuster isn't constitutional.

Perhaps that should go away completely.

Closing down government is not in the constitution as well. Neither is a debt ceiling.

Hopefully this "usurping" of the Constitution goes away too.

I sincerely hope you figure out what we are discussing so you don't sound incredibly crazy with this red herring.

Here's a little homework.

Lookup both the debt ceiling and filibuster in the constitution.

Feel free.

Even an "originalist" like Scalia knows they aren't there.

By the way, the court took a dangerous step here.

 

[Avatar4321]

The debt ceiling and filibuster are complete irrelevant to recess appointments.

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW you would think the fact that this was a unanimous decision by the court would tell the Obama sheeple that they might be wrong on this issue.

 

[Siete]

he POTUS still has the power to make appointments, today's ruling notwithstanding.


so much about so little ... enter the RW's

 

[Little-Acorn]

The filibuster isn't constitutional.

Perhaps that should go away completely.

Closing down government is not in the constitution as well. Neither is a debt ceiling.

Hopefully this "usurping" of the Constitution goes away too.

I sincerely hope you figure out what we are discussing so you don't sound incredibly crazy with this red herring.

Here's a little homework.

Lookup both the debt ceiling and filibuster in the constitution.

Feel free.

Even an "originalist" like Scalia knows they aren't there.

By the way, the court took a dangerous step here.

The usual big-govt-addict dodge, trying to pretend that for anything to be legal it must be written in the Constitution.

Did the Constitution say it was OK for you to tie your shoes this morning?

You're under arrest.

 

[Sallow]

When you lose the debate, lie. That seems to be sallow's technique here.

Supreme Court Limits President Obama's Appointment Powers - NationalJournal.com
In the view of the Court, as written by Breyer, "pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here."

Better luck next time.


No Republican President ever made a "recess appointment" when the Senate was in session.

Your disgruntled whining is cute.

Like I said.

Careful what you wish for..

Like the "filibuster" this might become the norm.

What do you mean might become the norm? The Senate has always had the ability to determine when it's in session or not. The President has never had that power.

It's not going to become the norm. It's been the norm for the past 200+ years.

Holding the senate open while there is no one there or no business is going is the norm?

 

[Sallow]

I sincerely hope you figure out what we are discussing so you don't sound incredibly crazy with this red herring.

Here's a little homework.

Lookup both the debt ceiling and filibuster in the constitution.

Feel free.

Even an "originalist" like Scalia knows they aren't there.

By the way, the court took a dangerous step here.

The usual big-govt-addict dodge, trying to pretend that for anything to be legal it must be written in the Constitution.

Did the Constitution say it was OK for you to tie your shoes this morning?

You're under arrest.

Now the Constitution is a living, breathing document?

Man..you guys must get whiplash with all those flip flops.

 

[BlindBoo]

AGAIN, 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- where the **** is the word need??????

In Scalia's opinion.

Justice Breyer wrote the opinion.

Please see post #32

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ident-s-appointments-power-3.html#post9332409

There is Scalia's opinion which is what I was commenting on.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes. And they were made while the Senate was actually on recess. Neither Bush nor Reagan had the audacity to proclaim the Senate out of session while they were having meetings and make recess appointments to avoid Senate confirmation.

So from now on Congress has the authority to usurp the Presidents Constitutional power by holding a one person phony session where no business is conducted every three days.
While all other members go home.

What goes around comes around.

So these are phoney meetings now?

The President doesn't have the authority to determine whether the Senate is in session or not. The Senate does.

And keep in mind this has been a Democrat controlled Senate

What would you call it?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R474cAN4yc0]Senate Pro Forma Session - YouTube[/ame]

It was the House that forced it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has limited a president's power to make temporary appointments to fill high-level government jobs.The court said Thursday that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he invoked the Constitution's provision on recess appointments to fill slots on the National Labor Relations Board in 2012.

News from The Associated Press

according to ACLJ are now null and void because the window was too short-3 days, and they said they were in session.

I wonder if all those people who told me I didn't know what I was talking about, or called me a far right wingnut, are going to pop in and apologize.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He declared that the Senate was in recess, even though they said they weren't. The Constitution clearly says it is up to Congress to determine if they are in recess or not, and the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Obama was wrong.

42 words, which makes this the secret to life, the universe, and everything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Actually, they pretty much gave Obama carte blanche on recess appointments, they just told him he does not have the unilateral authority to declare the Senate is in recess. Then again, you really don't understand anything more complex than see Jane run.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Frankly, the ruling was a piece of crap, they should have slapped down any recess appointment unless the vacancy occurs during a recess, like the Constitution says.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.

Actually, they pretty much gave Obama carte blanche on recess appointments, they just told him he does not have the unilateral authority to declare the Senate is in recess. Then again, you really don't understand anything more complex than see Jane run.

lol

 

[Misty]

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.

Obama is a constitutional law scholar. He knows that he is trampling on the constitution.

I'll issue you the same challenge that I have issued to PatriarchalShillSlinger:

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.

Obama used his own definition of recess. And before you say Bush did it too, this rule, if not overturned will apply to all presidents. Not just Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.'

Do you want to go through the recess appointment clause and point out what SCOTUS got wrong?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Actually, they pretty much gave Obama carte blanche on recess appointments, they just told him he does not have the unilateral authority to declare the Senate is in recess. Then again, you really don't understand anything more complex than see Jane run.

I believe this is what he based his erroneous decision on.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/opiniondocs/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf