Posted on 01/25/2013 12:16:49 PM PST by Red Steel
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 boards 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 doesnt 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.