Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Obamas NLRB Recess Appointments?

Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Obamas NLRB Recess Appointments?


  • Total voters
    15
That would be both funny and awesome. Obama loves his NLRB and has nominated some pretty radical people to the board.

Won't happen. When the NLRB is re-ratified next month, the Senate will note the previous decisions are good, but to make sure, the NLRB will merely ratify them again before SCOTUS opines.

Oh, my dear Starkey; the gift of ignorance that keeps on giving. Your simple mindedness is funny, but not necessary. Your argument lies within the "De Facto Officer Doctrine." Look it up. Isn't it a shame that you are so ill-equipped to debate me on this issue that I need to throw you a bone of knowledge so as to make up for your ignorance? Here you go ol simple minded one. >>> De Facto Officer Law & Legal Definition

De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube[/ame]


.

Oh please @JakeStarkey, I await your enlightened reply.
 
There are indeed more issues involved. None of which you can name but I certainly can.

Nevertheless, you cannot tell me that the reason Obama made his nominations when congress was in "recess" was because he couldn't wait for congress to return. LAUGHABLE!!!

The politics started with the president on this one. Congress just played politics in return which is their constitutional perogative. The Constitution is clear on who has what power and when. The only question left is whether "de facto officer doctrine" applies. Care to place your bets on this one and explain why?
wow, I'm seriously underwhelmed

I think Obama has given reason. :eek:

Most all of the relevant arguments on this have already been made:

"As we observed at the time of the appeals court decision, dramatically reining in recess appointments might not be a problem if the confirmation process always worked the way the framers of the Constitution intended, with the president submitting nominations to the Senate in timely fashion and the Senate expeditiously moving to an up-or-down vote. In an ideal world, recess appointments would be exceedingly rare."

Let history rule on recess appointments - latimes.com


Your misrepresentation is unworthy of the high opinion you have of yourself.

Some think we should all know how the court will rule on the roles of the Senate and President on this one. We don't and we don't.

Precedent has some Justices in rulings on similar cases before the court arguing for wanting to leave politics to the legislative branch, where powers between the executive and legislative branches are a political issue: solve it through legislative reform. This while having some Justices in rulings arguing for precedent being established anew because the political arguments may shield a constitutional argument that deserves addressing. I guess it will always depend on how the court agrees to hear an arguments as well as how the parties involved agreed to argue their cases.

On serious issues before the highest court in the land, more often than not nothing is as simple as most self-appointed 'experts' like to say it is.

Allow me to translate what the Obama admin observed: Our power has been checked by congress, and thus, we have the obligation to result to extra constitutional means so as to run around this essential constitutional barrier.

The checks and balances worked EXACTLY as the founders envisioned it!

I will forego returning the ad-hominems. I am confident enough not to seek self assurance via an unsubstantiated assault on my opponents character.

If you take yourself any more seriously, you will surely turn into a stone sculpture. :eusa_shifty:

Allow me to translate how the Obama admin observes things: "He took that action on Jan. 4 even though the Senate – a day earlier – had conducted a pro-forma session formally commencing the 112th Congress. Only one Senator presided over the pro-forma session, but under past practice, the Senate was technically in session when the president made his recess appointments.

The president and his lawyers disagree with those who claim the Senate was still in session. In their view, even though the Senate claimed to be session, it was actually in recess for purposes of the recess appointments clause." - Obama's recess appointments: Supreme Court to hear landmark case - CSMonitor.com

when hiding behind the checks and balances try and be intellectually honest
 
wow, I'm seriously underwhelmed

I think Obama has given reason. :eek:

Most all of the relevant arguments on this have already been made:

"As we observed at the time of the appeals court decision, dramatically reining in recess appointments might not be a problem if the confirmation process always worked the way the framers of the Constitution intended, with the president submitting nominations to the Senate in timely fashion and the Senate expeditiously moving to an up-or-down vote. In an ideal world, recess appointments would be exceedingly rare."

Let history rule on recess appointments - latimes.com


Your misrepresentation is unworthy of the high opinion you have of yourself.

Some think we should all know how the court will rule on the roles of the Senate and President on this one. We don't and we don't.

Precedent has some Justices in rulings on similar cases before the court arguing for wanting to leave politics to the legislative branch, where powers between the executive and legislative branches are a political issue: solve it through legislative reform. This while having some Justices in rulings arguing for precedent being established anew because the political arguments may shield a constitutional argument that deserves addressing. I guess it will always depend on how the court agrees to hear an arguments as well as how the parties involved agreed to argue their cases.

On serious issues before the highest court in the land, more often than not nothing is as simple as most self-appointed 'experts' like to say it is.

Allow me to translate what the Obama admin observed: Our power has been checked by congress, and thus, we have the obligation to result to extra constitutional means so as to run around this essential constitutional barrier.

The checks and balances worked EXACTLY as the founders envisioned it!

I will forego returning the ad-hominems. I am confident enough not to seek self assurance via an unsubstantiated assault on my opponents character.

If you take yourself any more seriously, you will surely turn into a stone sculpture. :eusa_shifty:

Allow me to translate how the Obama admin observes things: "He took that action on Jan. 4 even though the Senate – a day earlier – had conducted a pro-forma session formally commencing the 112th Congress. Only one Senator presided over the pro-forma session, but under past practice, the Senate was technically in session when the president made his recess appointments.

The president and his lawyers disagree with those who claim the Senate was still in session. In their view, even though the Senate claimed to be session, it was actually in recess for purposes of the recess appointments clause." - Obama's recess appointments: Supreme Court to hear landmark case - CSMonitor.com

when hiding behind the checks and balances try and be intellectually honest

I cannot properly reply without rehashing what has already been said.
 
What perhaps the socons like Publius are not realizing is that the 6 RCs and the 3 Jews that make up SCOTUS don't give squat about the Protestant elitism that shaped the country for three centuries.
 
we shall see what the SCOTUS does and says

Changing the subject, did you happen to run across the audio of the hearing? What did you deduce from it?

It's like reading tea leaves, people deduce what they want. long history on this says questions asked do not always predict rulings

I don't know, I predicted the Obama care ruling on the commerce clause and was only one off on the taxation issue. I can both be partisan and accurate.
 
The SCOTUS will rule the appointments ILLEGAL and overturn all of it's rulings since the illegal appointments.

The Senate decides when it is in session, not the executive. It's the biggest no-brainer in the history of the court.

Like I said...it's a no-brainer.

:thup:
 

Forum List

Back
Top