Court casts doubt on Obama’s recess appointments

Washington Times ^ | 12/5 | Stephen Dinan

[Lmo56]

A federal appeals court on Wednesday questioned not only President Obama’s controversial January recess appointments but the entire system of such appointments, using oral arguments in a case to cast doubt on whether presidential powers can ever be exercised unless Congress has adjourned for good.

[Lmo56]

Interesting ...

[knittnmom]

Quite!

[oldbrowser]

Did I just see the wheels of justice move a little?

[Dapper 26]

Why does court decisions matter to Obama? Republicans have been neutered and Obama disregards court decisions.

[b4its2late]

Yeah, they rolled forward just enough to no doubt go into overdrive in reverse.....

[Gator113]

A federal appeals court means absolutely nothing to Obama and his democrats.

[Jacquerie]

What's the big deal? Who cares? Well, our Founding generation did, and cared a lot. We had experience with a King who appointed and salaried our judges and "erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out their Substance." Sound familiar?

Article II Section 2. ". . . he shall nominate, and by with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers . . . "

Clearly, the President does not have plenary power to appoint his ministers. His appointments must pass muster under the watchful eyes of educated and experienced political men who represented the corporate interests of their states.

In the next para, "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate . . . " This is an exception to Senate's regular consent power, IMO, under the unusual circumstance of say, the resignation or death of a sitting minister. It is not a loophole to be exploited by despots.

Our Framers knew well the potential abuse of the appointment power. When Obama flips the Senate the bird over appointments, its not just a bold violation the Constitution, it is the return of a despotic power our ancestors revolted against.

[WellyP]

The judges were appointed by Pres. Regan, GHWB and GWB :)

[Republican Wildcat]

In these cases, however, the Senate was not even in recess, regardless of the argument over the occurrence of the vacancy.

[NonValueAdded]

Pretty much moot at this point - those appointments expire with the end of the current Congress. Be careful which appeal is last when SCOTUS refuses to hear the case due to it being moot, notwithstanding the practice deserves to be ruled upon so another 12 month cycle does not ensue.

[Jacquerie]

I wasn't very clear. I believe the clauses clearly mean the Senate must consent to all initial appointments by a new Prez. Should a minister quit or die AND the Senate is in recess, THEN the Prez can temporarily fill the position.

The recess appointment clause IMO was only intended to facilitate the smooth running of government on a temporary basis only when the Senate was out of town.

[Jacquerie]

That is another example of the way the Left has abused the Constitution; the temporary terms expire at the end of the next Session, not the current Congress.

[Verginius Rufus]

In the old days there were long stretches of time when Congress was not in session. In 1865 the old Congress (elected in 1862) saw their term end on March 4, and the new Congress (elected in 1864) had to wait until December to meet. Andrew Johnson could have called a special session but he had no desire to do so. The Constitution had dictated when the sessions of Congress would begin, but in 1787 they could not foresee that March 4 would be the date when Congressional terms began and ended. That was finally changed in the 1930s.

Both parties have abused this power, but Obama hit a new low.

[Republican Wildcat]

Oh, I understood you on that - I just meant even with that - the Senate was not even in recess at all when he made the “recess” appointments.