Skip to comments.Obama Recess Appointment Ruling Coming Soon
Posted on 01/17/2013 1:30:43 PM PST by jazusamo
Labor insiders expect a federal appeals court to rule in the near future on a landmark case challenging President Barack Obamas controversial recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in December in Noel Canning v. NLRB. At issue is the legitimacy of three NLRB board members appointed by Obama while the Senate remained in pro-forma session in an attempt to block the president from making a recess appointments. Insiders expect the court to expedite the proceedings.
Given the importance of this case, the decision should come out in the next month or two, said a source familiar with the case. There is no way of knowing, but we suspect sooner rather than later.
Glenn Taubman, an attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said a negative ruling could send the board into chaos.
If recess appointments are struck down, the board not only ceases to function going forward, but a whole raft of decisions they issued over the last year will be wiped out, he said. It will be back to the drawing board for Obamahell have submit new nominees and the Senate gets to advise and consent as the Constitution requires.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
"Given the importance of this case, the decision should come out in the next month or two, said a source familiar with the case. There is no way of knowing, but we suspect sooner rather than later.
" Glenn Taubman, an attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said a negative ruling could send the board into chaos."
" If recess appointments are struck down, the board not only ceases to function going forward, but a whole raft of decisions they issued over the last year will be wiped out, he said. It will be back to the drawing board for Obamahell have submit new nominees and the Senate gets to advise and consent as the Constitution requires.
The Won will just start over and do it again, the Senate will be no roadblock if Dingy Harry changes the filibuster.
If the ruling is against the Recess appointments why wouldn’t the NLRB just appeal it again ?
This is what they do - or ignore the ruling.
See how easy it is to wreck a Republic when you get corrupted courts involved?
Do we like this in the long term? If this was done before Bush’s Administration, we would not have had John Bolton during the Bush years. We will not have a Democratic President forever. Don’t we want the Republican President to have this process in case the Democrats block nominees like they did with Bush? What am I missing here?
Wasn’t one of these guys that Obama appointed involved in some scandal?
I think that's the legal issue or question. The Senate being in session was a sham. There were two senators present, one to have the presiding chair, and the other to start and adjourn. Typical "sessions" lasted less than half a minute, and no business could have been conducted, as the body didn't come remotely close to having a quorum present.
I think the court will find this to be a political question, outside of its ability to decide. But, assuming arguendo it says the appointment was improper, I doubt the court also tosses the rulings. The court would more likely apply the "de facto officer" principle to past actions.
Yes, I was right, one of those recess appointments at the NLRB is involved in a scandal.
No, we don’t want any president to act unconstitutionally. It’s called “the rule of law.”
I’d guess more than one of his appointees have been, I believe each one of them have been union attorneys of some kind. In my view about the only people more crooked than union leader thugs are their lawyers. ;)
You are missing that the Senate was in pro-forma recess to prevent recess appointments ... Obama wanted to appoint so HE, in his “I am Dictator and will do what I want” mode said they weren’t in recess and appointed anyway. In other words, he gave the Senate the finger (or worse) and did what he wanted, regardless of the rules/law/whatever. Like he usually does ... uses the Constitution for WH toilet paper, ignores laws he doesn’t like, makes up stuff he does like.
Thanks, I should have scrolled on down. I looked for something on the many threads I’ve posted here on the nlrb but there’s so many I gave up.
The vacancy clause of Article II is the exception, not the rule. It is not designed to be an end run around the duty of the Senate to vet the President's nominees.
The Senate being in session was a sham.
Also, Presidents do not have the power to declare when a house in another branch is in recess as Obam did, or to adjourn Congress for a day to place his cronies in power. These would be clear violations of the separation of powers.
But, he will almost certainly have four votes in Scotus, so as usual, the outcome will be a cr@pshoot.
That's the argument. The counterargument is that everybody has the power of simple observation. Is Congress "in session" when no quorum is present, and hasn't been for weeks? I know Congress SAYS it is in session, but is it in fact, in session?
The court can duck the issue completely, if it wants to.
I think that Senate failure to grant an up or down vote to a nominee is a violation of separation of powers, as it gives a minority in the Senate the power to effectively reject a president's nominee (without voting to reject) by causing the body to go into a state of inaction. No Court would touch the Senate's dysfunction with a ten foot pole. It's a political issue. The court would reason that it is up to the people to deal with the issue, not up to the court.
The founders did not allow recess appointments as a way for the president to sidestep Senate confirmation, but to ensure filling of important jobs when Senators were not accessible. Appointing nominees because they look to be rejected is the opposite of the founders intent. All sides have turned a good thing info an abomination