Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Supreme Court Recess Appointments Decision

  1. #1
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Supreme Court Recess Appointments Decision

    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/justic...nts/index.html

    An article from the liberal viewpoint:

    Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...a-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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,876
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalwart View Post
    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/justic...nts/index.html

    An article from the liberal viewpoint:

    Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...a-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.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 06-28-2014 at 08:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,876
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalwart View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,983
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member UH1FE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    You know it was proven they in fact did have WMD's........Liberal news agencies don't want to report that though.

  7. #7
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,983
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UH1FE View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UH1FE View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,876
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,876
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 06-29-2014 at 06:59 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •