High court limits president's appointments power

[AvgGuyIA]

Trey Gowdy has already nailed Obama's abuses of power.

Rep. Gowdy's Floor Speech on the ENFORCE the Law Act - YouTube

I love Trey Gowdy.. ♥ Thanks for sharing.. It was awesome!

I am proud to have voted for him.

You are my hero.

 

[Siete]

A procedural mistake? Obama overstepped his bounds. Even Ruth Ginsburg agreed with the Conservative Justices that Obama willfully flouted the Constitution. It is utterly bemusing to sit here and watch folks like you continue to defend the man even AFTER the Supreme Court sets him in his place. Lemmings the lot of you.

Until you produce direct quote where Justyce Gynsbyrg said or wrote this, I will be forced to assume that you are the lemming here, shoveling talking points packed with conservatard shit into your mouth and regurgitating it mindlessly.t

Does a 9-0 decision mean anything?

does the SC not giving a ruling yet mean anything?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No the article specifically said it was his own opinion. If it was a 9-0 decision how could it be, as you claim, a dissenting opinion?. I was responding to a post that had that quote in it. #43 I think.

Because there was a 5-4 split on how much to limit the recess appointment power.



Maybe you should learn to read, if it isn't too late.

Duh you got me, it was a dissent. But it was in response to this post.

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

Pos repped for admitting you made a mistake. I know that can be really hard, especially on a forum like this.

 

[Big Black Dog]

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.

Bull shit, in it's truest form.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Until you produce direct quote where Justyce Gynsbyrg said or wrote this, I will be forced to assume that you are the lemming here, shoveling talking points packed with conservatard shit into your mouth and regurgitating it mindlessly.t

Does a 9-0 decision mean anything?

does the SC not giving a ruling yet mean anything?

Does the fact that they actually did prove you are an idiot?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

how President Obama "usurped the US Constitution" in the matter of NLRB recess appointments

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

The Senate was in recess.

Republicans were pulling a bullshit trick by keeping it open.

There was one guy there and nothing happening.

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

A president does not determine when Congress is or is not in Sessiion!

 

[Siete]

Does a 9-0 decision mean anything?

does the SC not giving a ruling yet mean anything?

Does the fact that they actually did prove you are an idiot?

this administration doesn't have to honor a SC opinion until the SC makes a ruling ... apparently a ruling makes no difference to you, just the opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Until you produce direct quote where Justyce Gynsbyrg said or wrote this, I will be forced to assume that you are the lemming here, shoveling talking points packed with conservatard shit into your mouth and regurgitating it mindlessly.t

Does a 9-0 decision mean anything?

does the SC not giving a ruling yet mean anything?

Eh, yeah, this counts as a ruling, genius.

All agree that the phrase "the recess of the Senate" covers inter-session recesses. The question is whether it includes intra-session recesses as well.

NLRB v. Canning, p. 9

All agree that the phrase applies to vacancies that initially occur during a recess.

NLRB v. Canning, p. 21

The third question concerns the calculation of the length of the Senate's "recess." On December 17, 2011, the Senate by unanimous consent adopted a resolution to convene "pro forma session(s)" only, with "no business ... transacted," on every Tuesday and Friday from December 20, 2011, through January 20, 2012. 2011 S.J. 923. At the end of each pro forma session, the Senate would "adjourn until" the following pro forma session. Ibid. During that period, the Senate convened and adjoured as agreed. It held pro forma sessions on December 20, 23, 27, and 30, and on January 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20; and at the end of each pro forma session, it adjourned until the time and date of the next. Id., at 923-924; 158 Cong. Rec. S1-S11.

The President made recess appointments before us on January 4, 2012, in between the January 3 and the January 6 pro forma sessions. We must determine the significant--that is, whether, for purposes of the Clause, we should treat them as periods when the Senate was in sessions or as periods when it was in recess. If the former, the period between January 3 and January 6 was a 3-day recess, which is too short to trigger the President's recess-appointment power, see supra, at 19-21. If the latter, however, then the 3-day period was part of a much longer recess during which the President did have the power to make recess appointments, see ibid.

...

In our view...the pro forma sessions count as sessions, not periods of recess. NLRB v. Canning, p. 33-34

Given our answer to the last question before us, we conclude that the Recess Appointments Clause does not give the President the constitutional authority to make the appointments here at issue. Because the Court of Appeals reached the same ultimate conclusion (though for reasons we reject), its judgment is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

NLRB v. Canning, p. 41

When they end with "It is so ordered" it means they have just ruled on a case.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Every ruling made by these illegal labor relation board members must be reversed. I understand Obama appointed them because they were urber-liberal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

does the SC not giving a ruling yet mean anything?

Does the fact that they actually did prove you are an idiot?

this administration doesn't have to honor a SC opinion until the SC makes a ruling ... apparently a ruling makes no difference to you, just the opinion.

Given that the Judicial Branch is well um... a branch of government, that means the other two branches are submissive to the Judicial in areas pertaining to the constitutionality of the laws and regulations they enforce.

Were you asleep in history class or something? Did you not learn of "checks and balances?" or "bicameralism?"

 

[Kosh]

does the SC not giving a ruling yet mean anything?

Does the fact that they actually did prove you are an idiot?

this administration doesn't have to honor a SC opinion until the SC makes a ruling ... apparently a ruling makes no difference to you, just the opinion.

Translation - only the far left can do what they want and all others must conform to the law and the Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Does the fact that they actually did prove you are an idiot?

this administration doesn't have to honor a SC opinion until the SC makes a ruling ... apparently a ruling makes no difference to you, just the opinion.

Translation - only the far left can do what they want and all others must conform to the law and the Constitution.

Yeah, they only like it when the ruling supports them. When the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Obamacare, all we heard was "It's the law, you must conform!" Well, when the SCOTUS rules against the President's recess appointments, their response is "he doesn't have to comply." Seriously? How utterly predictable. Well, the Recess Appointments Clause IS THE LAW.

DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Kondor3]

 

[Peach]

Does the fact that they actually did prove you are an idiot?

this administration doesn't have to honor a SC opinion until the SC makes a ruling ... apparently a ruling makes no difference to you, just the opinion.

Given that the Judicial Branch is well um... a branch of government, that means the other two branches are submissive to the Judicial in areas pertaining to the constitutionality of the laws and regulations they enforce.

Were you asleep in history class or something? Did you not learn of "checks and balances?" or "bicameralism?"

Bicameralism concerns the legislative branch only This is Judicial Review. Marbury vs. Madison.

 

[TemplarKormac]

this administration doesn't have to honor a SC opinion until the SC makes a ruling ... apparently a ruling makes no difference to you, just the opinion.

Given that the Judicial Branch is well um... a branch of government, that means the other two branches are submissive to the Judicial in areas pertaining to the constitutionality of the laws and regulations they enforce.

Were you asleep in history class or something? Did you not learn of "checks and balances?" or "bicameralism?"

Bicameralism concerns the legislative branch only This is Judicial Review. Marbury vs. Madison.

[MENTION=17668]Peach[/MENTION]

You do know that our Senate is part of the Bicameral system, right?

Uh yeah, Marbury vs. Madison is judicial review. The Senate, which is one of the core parts of the Advice and Consent and the Recess Appointments Clause, is part of our bicameral government. They are at the heart of the matter.

Here's a crash course, bicameralism in respects to our government involves both the house and the senate. Or two bodies capable of passing legislation. One acts as a counter to the other, or they can work in conjunction. Which plays upon our system of checks and balances.

Don't cite opinions you know jack about. And please, don't lecture me about forms of government. I have you trumped in both law and government by a wide margin. I advise you to understand what bicameralism means before you impugn upon me your flawed knowledge.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Besides, what would you liberals care of our bicameral government anyhow, when you have a 'pen and a phone?'

 

[Quantum Windbag]

does the SC not giving a ruling yet mean anything?

Does the fact that they actually did prove you are an idiot?

this administration doesn't have to honor a SC opinion until the SC makes a ruling ... apparently a ruling makes no difference to you, just the opinion.

Excuse me, idiot, they handed down a 9-0 decision this morning. That is what counts, not whatever you think a ruling is.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Does the fact that they actually did prove you are an idiot?

this administration doesn't have to honor a SC opinion until the SC makes a ruling ... apparently a ruling makes no difference to you, just the opinion.

Excuse me, idiot, they handed down a 9-0 decision this morning. That is what counts, not whatever you think a ruling is.

it's about time the Court knocked this anti-Constitutional president back on his ass....9 to 0...

maybe they are finally waking up to this power-grabbing huckster and decided to protect themselves...otherwise this wannabe Hugo Chavez will deliberately walk all over them into non-existence...

let's hope they also go after all his illegal changes of the Obamacare statutes...

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

There was no "mistake". The Court UNANIMOUSLY declared the Obama committed a criminal act by trying to ursurp the power of the Congress to determine when it is in recess. Add this infraction to the list of impeachable offenses.

Actually, they didn't say anything about him committing a criminal act. Just because something is contrary to the law, doesn't mean it's criminal. In this case, it's simply unconstitutional.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

I wasn't in favor of some of Bush's recess appointments and the Democrats cried and whined that Bush was trampling over the Constitution, now its is suddenly okay?

I tire of this bullshit of excusing it because it is your party, what is wrong is wrong.

Obama is WRONG! Bush was WRONG!

The difference is Bush didn't have the audacity to declare the Senate out of session when he made recess appointments.

Obama did.