Obama's NLRB "recess" appointments invalid

[AustinChief]

I looked and didn't see a thread on this... you guys are dropping the ball!

So, it looks like every NLRB decision since January of 2012 will be invalidated. This is a VERY HEALTHY slap in the face to Obama's constant abuse of executive power.

Here is a great article on it

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...ointments-unc/

Any thoughts?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It is for when the Senate is in recess and an appointment needs to be made.

It's for when a post needs to be filled, period. It's a tool given to the President when it's been a while and the Senate's not in.

All of those conditions were met here.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yes, but the idea of any time the Senate is not in session is "THE Recess" is asinine as well.

Why?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Why?

It's amazing that you claim English as your primary language. The wording in the Constitution is

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 Recess

Notice the definite article THE and the capital letter R?

I will be amazed if the Supreme Court overturns this. The ruling makes far too much legal sense.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

The wording in the Constitution is

THE Recess

Notice the definite article THE and the capital letter R?

Are you familiar with inherent powers? Implied powers?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Are you familiar with inherent powers? Implied powers?

Yes, and clearly three Federal judges don't feel this qualifies. (because it very clearly doesn't)

Your boy lost and you're going to have to deal with it. It was a stunning victory for limiting executive power. Something every American should be proud of.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yes, and clearly three Federal judges don't feel this qualifies. (because it very clearly doesn't)

Not so clearly.

It could be very easily implied from "The Recess" that all recesses apply.

[Direckshun]

Here's the choice SCOTUS will have to make:

Exercise an absurdly strict definition of "recess" and make appointments of 1,400 government officials nigh unworkable if a Senate minority says so.

or

Exercise a reasonable interpretation of "recess" and allow the President to occasionally fill positions in the face of Congressional obstinance.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Here's the choice SCOTUS will have to make:

Exercise an absurdly strict definition of "recess" and make appointments of 1,400 government officials nigh unworkable if the Senate says so.

or

Exercise a reasonable interpretation of "recess" and allow the President to occasionally fill positions in the face of Congressional obstinance.

OR they could say that THE Recess applies to any OFFICIAL recess taken by the Senate, in which case Obama's appointments would be invalid but past President's would not. You know, because they bothered to play by THE ****ING RULES. I could see this being the "compromise" position taken. Or they let the ruling stand as is. I doubt they will take a broad interpretation that strips the Senate of it's CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to confirm appointments.

The problem here is that you think it is ok for a President to circumvent Congress anytime it pleases them. That's sickening.

[Direckshun]

Reagan made 243 recess appointments, by the way.

This is just another case of the Obama Litmus Test by the conservatives and Republicans on this board.

If Obama does it, then it's the work of the goddamn devil. It really is that simple.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Reagan made 243 recess appointments, by the way.

This is just another case of the Obama Litmus Test by the conservatives and Republicans on this board.

If Obama does it, then it's the work of the goddamn devil. It really is that simple.

Yes, but the Senate actually was in recess. If you don;t like the Senate rules, take it up with them... it doesn't mean you get to ignore the rules and make up your own. Obama has a habit of doing exactly that.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

OR they could say that THE Recess applies to any OFFICIAL recess taken by the Senate, in which case Obama's appointments would be invalid but past President's would not.

The problem of course, is that there's really no difference between a recess and a pro forma session. It's effectively a recess, called a session for no other reason than to block recess appointments.

The administration called the bluff. They got bit by it in court, but we haven't heard the last word of it yet.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I doubt they will take a broad interpretation that strips the Senate of it's CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to confirm appointments.

It doesn't strip the Senate of shit. It will just invalidate pro forma sessions as a loophole used by the minority to block recess appointments.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yes, but the Senate actually was in recess. If you don;t like the Senate rules, take it up with them...

I believe that's what the Constitution is doing, actually, via the judicial branch.

[Direckshun]

This is a point I believe SCOTUS will not ignore:

The decision will surely be appealed, but if it is upheld, it would essentially make the constitutional provision for “recess appointments” invalid — the Senate could always use the pro forma sessions to prevent a president from making such appointments. If that happens, Obama and future presidents will have less leverage in trying to force the Senate to consider nominees.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This is a point I believe SCOTUS will not ignore:

And this is the problem. Recess appointments are not MEANT to be used as leverage over the Senate. PERIOD. It is clear in the Constitution what the framers meant and I doubt the Supreme Court will go against the Constitution on this. You want recess appointments to be used in that manner... get it written into the Constitution. Don't just make up rules as you go along.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The problem of course, is that there's really no difference between a recess and a pro forma session. It's effectively a recess, called a session for no other reason than to block recess appointments.

The administration called the bluff. They got bit by it in court, but we haven't heard the last word of it yet.





It doesn't strip the Senate of shit. It will just invalidate pro forma sessions as a loophole used by the minority to block recess appointments.

Reid held some pro forma sessions under Bush.

The internal rules of each institution govern its operations. It is NOT up to a President to determine whether the Senate is in session because it leads to such a constitutional confrontation.