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?

[blaise]

Because it's Obama it's no big deal.

- cosmo and Direckshun

[RNR]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I'm calling the operational rules (the pro forma session) a sham. I'm calling the clause in the Constitution about recess appointments obsolete.

Pretty much anything that does not fit this administrations agenda is obsolete in your eyes ~

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

From an article a year ago right after this ridiculous travesty happened.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...ichard-cordray

BOOM. Going to be tough to get around this.

Oh and just a nice bonus... this also invalidates Cordray's appointment as the first head of the CFPB, which probably means that every action taken by them is now invalid.

That's extremely interesting.

I hadn't seen Article 1, Section 5 dragged into the discussion before. That's a new one to me.

Hmmmmmmmm. Very interesting.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Pretty much anything that does not fit this administrations agenda is obsolete in your eyes ~

No, I explained why I thought it was obsolete. I thought that was pretty clear, actually.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

No, I explained why I thought it was obsolete. I thought that was pretty clear, actually.

I have never read a single post from you that does not tow the left line. Maybe I have just missed the posts where you are objective and willing to admit the left was in error~

[Direckshun]

Apparently, the 11th, 2nd, and 9th circuit have all addressed this issue before and found that the POTUS can in fact make recess appointments in the middle of a Senate recess.

I will keep digging, to see if I can locate their stated reasoning.

As of now, the DC circuit is firmly in the minority.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Apparently, the 11th, 2nd, and 9th circuit have all addressed this issue before and found that the POTUS can in fact make recess appointments in the middle of a Senate recess.

I will keep digging, to see if I can locate their stated reasoning.

As of now, the DC circuit is firmly in the minority.

How many courts said ACA was unConstitutional or partly before it got to the SC?

[Cave Johnson]

One of the judges in the panel is a partisan hack, having played a role in both Iran-Contra and the Whitewater witchhunt.

I'm gonna take his legal conclusions with a metric shit-ton of salt.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...le-case-012513

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

One of the judges in the panel is a partisan hack, having played a role in both Iran-Contra and the Whitewater witchhunt.

I'm gonna take his legal conclusions with a metric shit-ton of salt.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...le-case-012513

Do you think a partisan from the other side is more reliable?
Have to have an opposition party or these things don't get challenged.

[jettio]

Seems to me that it is wrong for the Congress to create offices that require commissions granted by presidential nomination and the advice and consent of the Senate, but then have the Senate not vote on the nominees. Especially when it is close to certain that many of the nominess would be confirmed by a majority of the Senators.

This case seems like a giant waste of time created by another giant waste of time.

IMO, I could see there being some senatorial courtesies regarding federal judicial nominees for the senators from the state(s) that federal court would have jurisdcition over, but nearly all judge nominees should get an up or down vote.

Not giving up or down votes on nominees for the NLRB and any other Congress created agency requiring a Senate confirmation seems to me contrary to what the Framers expected when drafting that section. Seems to me wrong that offices remain vacant when the POTUS nominates someone that would be confirmed on a floor vote.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Apparently, the 11th, 2nd, and 9th circuit have all addressed this issue before and found that the POTUS can in fact make recess appointments in the middle of a Senate recess.

I will keep digging, to see if I can locate their stated reasoning.

As of now, the DC circuit is firmly in the minority.

The 11th on intrasession recesses:

[W]e reject the argument that the plain meaning of the
phrase, “the Recess of the Senate,” limits the opportunity to make recess
appointments to one particular recess: the recess at the end of a Session. We do
not agree that the Framers’ use of the term “the” unambiguously points to the
single recess that comes at the end of a Session. Instead, we accept that “the
Recess,” originally and through today, could just as properly refer generically to
any one -- intrasession or intersession -- of the Senate’s acts of recessing, that is,
taking a break.

Furthermore, what we understand to be the
main purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause -- to enable the President to fill
vacancies to assure the proper functioning of our government -- supports reading
both intrasession recesses and intersession recesses as within the correct scope of
the Clause. That an intersession recess might be shorter than an intrasession
recess is entirely possible.10 The purpose of the Clause is no less satisfied during
an intrasession recess than during a recess of potentially even shorter duration that
comes as an intersession break.

This kind of argument presents a political question that moves beyond
interpretation of the text of the Constitution and on to matters of discretionary
power, comity and good policy. These matters are criteria of political wisdom and
are highly subjective. They might be the proper cause for political challenges to
the President, but not for judicial decision making: we lack the legal standards --
once we move away from interpreting the text of the Constitution -- to determine
how much Presidential deference is due to the Senate when the President is
exercising the discretionary authority that the Constitution gives fully to him.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Apparently, the 11th, 2nd, and 9th circuit have all addressed this issue before and found that the POTUS can in fact make recess appointments in the middle of a Senate recess.

I will keep digging, to see if I can locate their stated reasoning.

As of now, the DC circuit is firmly in the minority.

And yet again... those decisions require the Senate to actually BE IN RECESS. The President doesn't get to just say "nope I don't think you are really in session, I think it's a sham, so I will move forward." It's against the law. Period. Please find a precedent for the President getting to determine when the Senate is in session and when it is in recess. Now, the recent decision takes it two steps further and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Supreme Court ratchet it back slightly... but either way, Obama was dead wrong and his appointments won't stand.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by jettio

Seems to me that it is wrong for the Congress to create offices that require commissions granted by presidential nomination and the advice and consent of the Senate, but then have the Senate not vote on the nominees. Especially when it is close to certain that many of the nominess would be confirmed by a majority of the Senators.

This case seems like a giant waste of time created by another giant waste of time.

IMO, I could see there being some senatorial courtesies regarding federal judicial nominees for the senators from the state(s) that federal court would have jurisdcition over, but nearly all judge nominees should get an up or down vote.

Not giving up or down votes on nominees for the NLRB and any other Congress created agency requiring a Senate confirmation seems to me contrary to what the Framers expected when drafting that section. Seems to me wrong that offices remain vacant when the POTUS nominates someone that would be confirmed on a floor vote.

I generally agree.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

And yet again... those decisions require the Senate to actually BE IN RECESS.

Letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, I'm afraid.

If you think the framers believed the Senate should be able to use what is little more than a knock knock joke as an effective substitute for an open, active session, and not what it actually is, which is a trite exercise in creative obstructionism, then I'd like to have what you're having.

[Direckshun]

By the way, the idea that you know how this is going to turn out is laughable, AC.

It's in the hands of the judicial system. And when it comes to judicial considerations, the ancient adage is: he who thinks he knows everything, knows nothing.