PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Recess Appointments Decision



Stalwart
06-28-2014, 02:44 AM
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Obama's National Labor Relations Board appointments in the 2011-2012 period were unconstitutional.

Recess appointments are explicitly spelled out in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: "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."

The catch was that -- according to Congress, they decide when they are in session and they are not.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/justice/supreme-court-recess-appointments/index.html

An article from the liberal viewpoint:

Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-obama-noel-canning

-My only issue with this article is the quote:

"The only problem? The Senate claimed it wasn't technically in recess when Obama made his appointments. Republicans were holding pro forma meetings every few days, sessions where they'd gavel in and out for the sole purpose of claiming that they weren't in "recess" in order to block Obama."

While the Senate has to receive consent from the House to recess, Republicans cannot 'gavel (the Senate) in and out', that is done by the Presiding Officer of the Senate ... the Presiding Officer is a member of the majority party ... which in 2011 & 2012 was the Democrats. This tactic of keeping the Senate in session via pro-forma procedure was initiated by Sen Reid-NV when President G.W. Bush was in office to prevent recess appointments; then-Sen. Obama actually presided at least once in a pro-forma session.

I find it very telling that this was a unanimous decision -- not one down ideological lines or the Justices appointed by D's voting against those appointed by R's ... every single Justice agreed that Congress decides when it is on vacation -- reaffirming the checks and balances of our system.

A couple of take-aways that I see:

1. Now all the decisions of the NLRB in that time are going to have to be re-adjudicated.
2. Since this in effect means that if EITHER house of Congress is controlled by a different party than the President, they could forever bar recess appointments using the Pro-Forma tactic. This could mean a couple of things: greater gridlock or a recognition that some form of compromise is required.

I have read more recently and heard from colleagues on the Hill that the Senate may shift to the Republicans this fall, which could make the next 2 years very interesting in the way the Executive and Legislative Branches interact.

Rainmaker
06-28-2014, 09:15 PM
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Obama's National Labor Relations Board appointments in the 2011-2012 period were unconstitutional.

Recess appointments are explicitly spelled out in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: "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."

The catch was that -- according to Congress, they decide when they are in session and they are not.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/justice/supreme-court-recess-appointments/index.html

An article from the liberal viewpoint:

Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-obama-noel-canning

-My only issue with this article is the quote:

"The only problem? The Senate claimed it wasn't technically in recess when Obama made his appointments. Republicans were holding pro forma meetings every few days, sessions where they'd gavel in and out for the sole purpose of claiming that they weren't in "recess" in order to block Obama."

While the Senate has to receive consent from the House to recess, Republicans cannot 'gavel (the Senate) in and out', that is done by the Presiding Officer of the Senate ... the Presiding Officer is a member of the majority party ... which in 2011 & 2012 was the Democrats. This tactic of keeping the Senate in session via pro-forma procedure was initiated by Sen Reid-NV when President G.W. Bush was in office to prevent recess appointments; then-Sen. Obama actually presided at least once in a pro-forma session.

I find it very telling that this was a unanimous decision -- not one down ideological lines or the Justices appointed by D's voting against those appointed by R's ... every single Justice agreed that Congress decides when it is on vacation -- reaffirming the checks and balances of our system.

A couple of take-aways that I see:

1. Now all the decisions of the NLRB in that time are going to have to be re-adjudicated.
2. Since this in effect means that if EITHER house of Congress is controlled by a different party than the President, they could forever bar recess appointments using the Pro-Forma tactic. This could mean a couple of things: greater gridlock or a recognition that some form of compromise is required.

I have read more recently and heard from colleagues on the Hill that the Senate may shift to the Republicans this fall, which could make the next 2 years very interesting in the way the Executive and Legislative Branches interact.

Procedural issue. Slap on the wrist. Better than nothing. The GOP is no longer an opposition party, and doesn't have the balls to go after the High Crimes and Misdemeanors being committed by this administration. so, they'll just find another way to get appointments.

Stalwart
06-29-2014, 12:32 AM
Procedural issue. Slap on the wrist. Better than nothing. The GOP is no longer an opposition party, and doesn't have the balls to go after the High Crimes and Misdemeanors being committed by this administration.

Not being confrontational but to get some conversation going:

Do you believe the House should pursue impeachment? Based on what crimes and misdemeanors specifically?



so, they'll just find another way to get appointments.

I don't disagree, the game on both sides is to find ways to get things done in spite of the hurdles.

One of the more interesting people I have ever talked to was the Parliamentarian of the Senate, basically the guy (lawyer) who interprets the Senate rules (they make their own) and a member of the Parliamentarian staff is the one that you see (on CSPAN) that is prompting the Presiding Officer of the Senate on what the next procedural steps on the floor are. They are not partisan ... but know the in's and out's of the parliamentary process.

Rainmaker
06-29-2014, 04:25 AM
Not being confrontational but to get some conversation going:

Do you believe the House should pursue impeachment? Based on what crimes and misdemeanors specifically?




I don't disagree, the game on both sides is to find ways to get things done in spite of the hurdles.

One of the more interesting people I have ever talked to was the Parliamentarian of the Senate, basically the guy (lawyer) who interprets the Senate rules (they make their own) and a member of the Parliamentarian staff is the one that you see (on CSPAN) that is prompting the Presiding Officer of the Senate on what the next procedural steps on the floor are. They are not partisan ... but know the in's and out's of the parliamentary process.

Using the IRS as a weapon to punish political opponents and intentionally causing a humanitarian crisis at the border.

sandsjames
06-29-2014, 12:10 PM
Using the IRS as a weapon to punish political opponents and intentionally causing a humanitarian crisis at the border.

Just as hard to prove direct involvement as it is to prove that G-Dub knew Iraq didn't have WMDs.

UH1FE
06-29-2014, 02:55 PM
You know it was proven they in fact did have WMD's........Liberal news agencies don't want to report that though.

sandsjames
06-29-2014, 03:52 PM
You know it was proven they in fact did have WMD's........Liberal news agencies don't want to report that though.

Wasn't the point I was making. Just pointing out that if there weren't that it would be impossible to prove that the President knew...just as it is with the IRS thing.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-29-2014, 04:31 PM
You know it was proven they in fact did have WMD's........Liberal news agencies don't want to report that though.

Of course not, because they're "in bed" with their messiah, king Obama.

Rainmaker
06-29-2014, 07:46 PM
Just as hard to prove direct involvement as it is to prove that G-Dub knew Iraq didn't have WMDs.

Would it be rationale to assume he knew before he gave the order? Or maybe just the guys pulling his strings never mentioned it to him? In either case, Rainmaker agrees... It's Bush's fault.

Rainmaker
06-29-2014, 07:48 PM
Of course not, because they're "in bed" with their messiah, king Obama.

They're in bed with whoever pays their bills and keeps the phony "red team/blue team" status quo shitshow going. There is effectively no opposition party right now and hasn't been for at least 20 years. The Boner is a crooked drunk and will do nothing except bloviate.

Rainmaker
06-29-2014, 07:55 PM
You know it was proven they in fact did have WMD's........Liberal news agencies don't want to report that though.

and it only took Al Qadea (or ISIS or ISIL or whatever we're calling them now) two weeks to find them. Amazing isn't it? FORWARD!SEND IN THE 300!!!...You can't even make this shit up.

efmbman
06-29-2014, 08:35 PM
If our elected politicians would spend half the time solving the real problems our country is facing instead of finding loophopes and plotting to outmaneuver the other party, we would be in much better shape. Every day our government is looking more and more like a playground with 5-year olds fighting over a kickball. The worst part is that the electorate buys into that fallicy that one party is better than the other.

Capt Alfredo
06-30-2014, 12:25 AM
and it only took Al Qadea (or ISIS or ISIL or whatever we're calling them now) two weeks to find them. Amazing isn't it? FORWARD!SEND IN THE 300!!!...You can't even make this shit up.

You know damn well that Saddam's old chem plants (which had been put out of order) were not what Cheney and company were referring to during the run up to Gulf War 2. Even the Bush administration people have since admitted that Saddam did not have a functioning WMD program the likes of which were used as a pretext for war. ISIS/AQI/whatever did not magically find some "mass destruction" items; they found an old plant with worthless/inert items.

sandsjames
06-30-2014, 01:05 AM
Would it be rationale to assume he knew before he gave the order? Or maybe just the guys pulling his strings never mentioned it to him? In either case, Rainmaker agrees... It's Bush's fault.


I'd imagine that both G-dub and the Messiah both were/are left in the dark on many things. Ultimately, they are responsible. But did they actually know before the fact? No way to tell.

Rainmaker
06-30-2014, 03:49 AM
You know damn well that Saddam's old chem plants (which had been put out of order) were not what Cheney and company were referring to during the run up to Gulf War 2. Even the Bush administration people have since admitted that Saddam did not have a functioning WMD program the likes of which were used as a pretext for war. ISIS/AQI/whatever did not magically find some "mass destruction" items; they found an old plant with worthless/inert items.

Not sure. I'll have to check ISIS 2014 annual report in PDF format and get back wiff you