Posted on 01/25/2013 12:16:49 PM PST by Red Steel
White House press secretary Jay Carney on Friday blasted a court decision that nixed three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board as “novel and unprecedented,” but said that he did not expect any broader application of the ruling.
“It’s one court, one case, one company,” Carney said.
Carney said there has been “enormous frustration” at the White House with the Senate’s refusal to approve nominees. But the ruling Friday “contradicts 150 year of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations. … So we respectfully but strongly disagree with the ruling.”
Carney declined to say if the administration planned to appeal, referring questions about next steps to the Department of Justice. Justice Department officials said they had no immediate comment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the appointments were unconstitutional since the Senate was not actually in recess when Obama appointed three members to the board.
“[T]he President made his three appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012, after Congress began a new session on January 3 and while that new session continued,” the court wrote in its decision. “Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception.”
Implications of the decision are still being sorted out. One potential result raised immediately was that by invalidating the labor board appointments, the decision may have effectively invalidated all the board’s work since they were made, including orders and regulations issued.
The NLRB and the White House expressed confidence that this would not happen.
“This court decision does not effect this operation, their ability to function,” Carney said.
The decision also puts into question the appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That appointment was made at the same time as the NLRB appointments.
Carney said it also argued that the decision will have “no bearing” on Cordray, adding “It simply doesn’t as a legal matter.”
Republicans jumped on the ruling and held it up as an affirmation of their contention that the president should not be allowed to play fast and loose with the constitutional mandate that the Senate confirm his appointments.
“Today’s ruling reaffirms that the Constitution is above political party or agenda, despite what the Obama Administration seems to think,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who filed an amicus brief in the case with 41 other senators. “This wasn’t an activist decision or legislating from the bench.”
House Speaker John Boehner called the ruling “a victory for accountability.” By invalidating the labor board appointments, the decision effectively invalidated all the board’s work since they were made, including orders and regulations issued.
“We welcome today’s ruling as a victory for accountability in government and hope it will ultimately help employers and workers overcome excessive regulations,” Boehner said in a statement. “The Obama administration has consistently used the NLRB to impose regulations that hurt our economy by fostering uncertainty in the workplace and telling businesses where they can and cannot create jobs.”
Labor groups condemned the decision.
“Today’s decision by a panel of Republican judges on the DC Circuit is nothing less than shocking,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement, adding that he fully expects “this radical decision to be reversed, and that other courts addressing this issue will uphold the President’s recess appointment authority.”
In its ruling on the case, Noel Canning v. NLRB, the court found that the board, in its defense, did not successfully make the argument that actions by recent presidents trumped the actions undertaken by presidents earlier in the country’s history, when recess appointments were rare.
“Their early understanding of the Constitution is more probative of its original meaning than anything to be drawn from administrations of more recent vintage,” the court wrote. “While the Board seeks support for its interpretation in the practices of more recent administrations, we do not find those practices persuasive.”
Yoo Hoo! Richard Cordray! Adios My Friend.
Justice Department: "do it anyway. We don't need no stinkin' Constitution."
Since this is basically all about Unions....wouldn’t be surprised if it was deliberate....so Obama could operate with a Csar (no Senate approval necessary)...behind closed doors.
The press did not much cover this when it happened, and they won’t much cover it now, except to explain how the judges just don’t get it.
See, Obama is a god.
Implications of the decision are still being sorted out. One potential result raised immediately was that by invalidating the labor board appointments, the decision may have effectively invalidated all the board’s work since they were made, including orders and regulations issued. The NLRB and the White House expressed confidence that this would not happen. “This court decision does not effect this operation, their ability to function,” Carney said.TRANSLATION: We're going to completely ignore the federal court and proceed as planned.The decision also puts into question the appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That appointment was made at the same time as the NLRB appointments.
Carney said it also argued that the decision will have “no bearing” on Cordray, adding “It simply doesn’t as a legal matter.”
Because no one can stop us.
ROFLMAO! I loved the commentary at HuffPo. Basically they think the President should be able totell the Senate when it is and isn’t in session.
White House Blasts Gas From Its Nether Regions!
The administrations response to any challenge is now: "What difference does it make?"
It’s payback time Hillary. Get those John Roberts FBI files out of storage, grrrrl!
Yep, I knew this would be the reaction.
They’ll ignore the ruling,
because no one WILL stop them.
No one will step up and enforce this decision.
So ... do the illegal appointees have to repay their salaries?
Or do the misappropriated funds Obama’s personal responsibility?
Here’s an article from the WA Post by Ed Meese from January 2012 that explains the recess appointments and gives some history.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-05/opinions/35438016_1_senate-recess-senate-session-richard-cordray
That gol darned Constitution thingy again!!!
Note to the White House. FOAD!
I volunteer to be a marshall to take the tyrant out of the white house and toss him in the DC Cooler.
I’ll bet that Barry went ballistic.
The White House is saying that the Senate was not technically in session, and that one or two Republicans gaveling in a session for 5 minutes is not enough.
That argument is a red-herring for several reasons.
1. Congress gets to define when it is in session, not the president.
2. Most importantly, the Senate is not a lone actor in this. The Constitution requires that both chambers agree to a recess of more than 3 days, and the House did not agree. The House remained in session, which required the Senate to remain in session, too.
The debate must be about how the House remaining in session required the Senate to remain in session, too. That means that the pro forma Senate session was NOT a gimmick. It was a Constitutional requirement.
The House has just as much to say about when the Senate is in session as the Senate does. The president has NO say as to when CONGRESS is in session.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.