Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Condemns Court Ruling On 'Unconstitutional' Obama Appointments [Imperial Presidency!]
Guardian (UK) ^ | January 25, 2013

Posted on 01/25/2013 10:10:21 PM PST by Steelfish

White House Condemns Court Ruling On 'Unconstitutional' Obama Appointments Spokesman says ruling heralded by Republicans' lawyers as 'stinging rebuke' to president is 'novel and unprecedented' 25 January 2013

The Obama administration is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court over its right to make direct appointments when Congress is in recess.

Barack Obama breached the constitution when he bypassed Congress to make appointments to a labour relations panel, a federal appeal court ruled on Friday in a decision that was condemned by the White House as "novel and unprecedented".

The judgement, from a three-judge panel of the US court of appeals for the DC circuit and regarding the filling of vacancies at the the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), represents a significant legal victory for Republicans and big business. It could also severely restrict the president's use of a constitutional provision that permits him to directly appoint officials without congressional approval.

Successive presidents have used the provision to place hundreds of officials who have been rejected, or are likely to be rejected, by the Senate at confirmation hearings.

But in what lawyers for the Republican congressional delegation called a "stinging rebuke" to Obama, the court narrowed the president's authority considerably by ruling that the constitution only permits him to make those appointments when the vacancy occurs during a recess between individual Congresses, such as occurred earlier this month when a newly elected Congress took office. Any appointment must then be made during the same recess.

"The filling up of a vacancy that happens during a recess must be done during the same recess in which the vacancy arose," the court said.

The ruling struck down the president's appointment of three people to the NLRB a year ago, but if it stands it is likely to have much wider implications.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: recessappointments

1 posted on 01/25/2013 10:10:29 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
"The filling up of a vacancy that happens during a recess must be done during the same recess in which the vacancy arose," the court said.

I thought the issue was that Congress was really not in recess. Or is that another one? I didn't know when the vacancy occurred made a difference. Let's say a vacancy occurs and a President tries to fill the vacancy but has problems. Congress goes into recess. Congress then comes back into session. The President tries to fill the vacancy but encounters rejection. The Congress goes into recess. Why can't a President fill the appointment. The vacancy could have first opened up 3 years ago or whatever. what difference does that make? Just wondering.

2 posted on 01/25/2013 10:18:41 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends



Aye

3 posted on 01/25/2013 10:22:03 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

How dare they! Pull out your pen, Barry, and Executive
Order that federal court right out of existence.


4 posted on 01/25/2013 10:22:36 PM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
-- I thought the issue was that Congress was really not in recess. Or is that another one? I didn't know when the vacancy occurred made a difference. --

The way the court resolved the issue was to determine the meaning and function of the recess appointments clause. Not only did the court conclude that the Senate was not in recess, it also defined the circumstances that satisfy the recess appointments clause.

To wit, a recess happens, on average, once a year (adjourn sine die is the legal marker); and the only vacancies that are amenable to recess appointment are those that happen, occur, start, begin during a recess.

So, now, in the DC Circuit, the timing of when a vacancy occurs makes a difference.

5 posted on 01/25/2013 10:28:49 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Well, one reason would be that if Congress, collectively at least, does not want a position filled... it does not get filled. Remember, Congress and the Prez are partners in the process, each with a role. It’s like Congress has a veto.

A recess appt gives the benefit of the doubt to the prez to make a LIMITED appointment when they are out of town between sessions, because the previous appointment never got even the chance of being considered by the Congress.


6 posted on 01/25/2013 10:30:42 PM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

No scholar here- but I would surmise that the intent of a recess appointment was to be a temporary measure when a vacancy occurred DURING a recess, not a way to place unapprovable candidates into offices, where vacancies had existed prior to recess...

Many more here at FR are schooled in this- I await illumination.


7 posted on 01/25/2013 10:35:37 PM PST by One Name (Ultimately, the TRUTH is a razor's edge and no man can sit astride it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

There is the text of the ruling that goes into detail about what constitutes a recess vs. THE recess. What’s an adjournment and what’s a session. They say the constitution was written at a time when Congress could go months without being in session. I hardly think that just because Congress doesn’t convene for 3 days means that it’s in recess. If the office has been vacant for 3 years like in your example, there’s no excuse for making an appointment during a recess. Presidents have been abusing the recess appointment thing for decades.


8 posted on 01/25/2013 10:40:15 PM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Mark Levin opened his program using Obama’s own words:

“If Congress will not act, I will.”

The court said you acted unconstitutionally Mr. President. But then, you excel at that.


9 posted on 01/25/2013 10:48:21 PM PST by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N
-- Well, one reason would be that if Congress, collectively at least, does not want a position filled... it does not get filled. Remember, Congress and the Prez are partners in the process, each with a role. It's like Congress has a veto. --

Congress created the NLRB, and it can destroy the NLRB. The "partnership" exists only because Congress created it.

10 posted on 01/25/2013 10:52:31 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Brits don’t understand Constitutional law. Ignore this article.


11 posted on 01/25/2013 10:53:56 PM PST by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

The BoyKing will be irate, as will sycophants like Joe Scarborough.

I look forward to Joe scolding the court on Monday morning.


12 posted on 01/25/2013 11:05:38 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
"It could also severely restrict the president's use of a constitutional provision"

They really are not paying attention over there, are they?

13 posted on 01/25/2013 11:44:47 PM PST by Michael.SF. (Obama lied, Stevens died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt; plain talk
I agree with Cboldt. This is actually a very broad ruling, and now I think the Supreme Court will have to consider the ruling in its entirety on appeal. The original sticking point was: the appointment was made, and Congress was not actually in recess. In its decision the appeals court has basically swept aside as Unconstitutional a lot more than it was asked to consider.

If this is upheld by the SCOTUS, the use of recess appointments to temporarily get people such as John Bolton into office is now dead (unless you can persuade current officeholders to wait for recess.)

Much as I liked Bolton, I think it's actually a good thing.

14 posted on 01/26/2013 1:30:49 AM PST by FredZarguna ("The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Henry the Sixth Part II, 4.2.71-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

They don’t even understand the difference between the constitution and The Constitution. How do you expect them to keep up with anything serious?


15 posted on 01/26/2013 1:32:17 AM PST by FredZarguna ("The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Henry the Sixth Part II, 4.2.71-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

We should make one comment here...this method of “not being in session” during the Xmas period....was invented by Harry Reid toward the last year or two of Bush’s period. Basically...some Senator would walk into the Senate...state some business, open a session, and do a carry-over till tomorrow, and the next day...etc. It was a fake session, but Bush and his legal team figured that it’d be legit enough for the court (he was right).

So what Harry Reid invented....worked, and sadly, it also affected President Obama.

Here’s the final piece of this mess...the people appointed....made decisions that affected people’s lives. You can figure at least 10k cases that will be brought over the next year that center back over this appointment issue. Lawyers stand to make at least $500 million in legal costs (my humble belief)....all because of what Harry Reid started.


16 posted on 01/26/2013 1:46:09 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Someone tell the Kenyon to STHU. We’re tired of his whining.


17 posted on 01/26/2013 2:01:00 AM PST by trailboss800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
"It could also severely restrict the president's use of a constitutional provision" .... They really are not paying attention over there, are they? ....

More that you know.

18 posted on 01/26/2013 2:02:22 AM PST by Lazamataz (LAZ'S LAW: As an argument with liberals goes on, the probability of being called racist approaches 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

I thought the issue was that Congress was really not in recess. ...That was the problem. The Congress WAS in session but were not meeting regularly. Obunghole saw this and jumped. It is not meant that if Congress takes a lunch break, the President can use this perogative.


19 posted on 01/26/2013 2:53:03 AM PST by Safetgiver ( Islam makes barbarism look genteel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

20 posted on 01/26/2013 3:07:02 AM PST by Eye of Unk (AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
-- We should make one comment here...this method of "not being in session" during the Xmas period....was invented by Harry Reid toward the last year or two of Bush's period. --

Yep. He thought it was clever. Too clever by half. "Senate in session" was a sham. Pretty funny that Obama flew into the honey pot.

I do think the DC Circuit got it right, "recess appointment" was meant to be a narrow application. That is has come into so much use is a measure of the Senate's dysfunction.

-- Lawyers stand to make at least $500 million in legal costs (my humble belief)....all because of what Harry Reid started. --

Obama could have kept the chain from breaking too, by not making those NLRB appointments. I do agree, Reid's step is part of that chain, and had he not started the practice of sham sessions for the purpose of preventing recess appointments, this case would never have been heard. The Democrats initiate stretching the rules to (and sometime past) the breaking point. It's unusual for them to become ensnared in their own trap.

21 posted on 01/26/2013 4:20:28 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
-- In its decision the appeals court has basically swept aside as Unconstitutional a lot more than it was asked to consider. --

The Court was asked to consider whether or not the senate was in recess, and whether or not the appointment was within the recess appointments clause. From the tenor of the opinion, I think that plaintiff argued that "the recess" is associated with adjournment sine die, and that the words "vacancy happens during the recess" mean what they say. Not all vacancies are amenable to recess appointment, under the constitution. Just saying, the result is one that the court was asked to consider.

If upheld (and I don't trust SCOTUS to follow the constitution), this decision lights a bit of a fire under the senate. It has been shirking its constitutional duty for decades. All it has to do is reject, by vote, those nominees that it objects to.

22 posted on 01/26/2013 4:30:25 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

MEMO TO MR. OBAMA: If you will not like the answer that you should expect, do not ask the question.


23 posted on 01/26/2013 5:17:01 AM PST by Rapscallion (If you don't like his tyranny, wait until you get his social justice bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
Brits don’t understand Constitutional law.

That became painfully obvious when they said this:

a significant legal victory for Republicans and big business.

24 posted on 01/26/2013 5:42:25 AM PST by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

any time the grey house is up set is just fine with me...


25 posted on 01/26/2013 5:57:16 AM PST by The Wizard (Madam President is my President now and in the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Imperialist Obama regime?
Try Stalinist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z6ma-AETQN4#!


26 posted on 01/26/2013 6:01:39 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The Incompetent One needn’t worry, Justice Roberts will fix it for him.


27 posted on 01/26/2013 6:17:16 AM PST by Marathoner 244
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

If this gets appealed to the SCOTUS will Justice Roberts again vote with the liberals just to “get along” like he did on Obamacare?


28 posted on 01/26/2013 6:21:40 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
If this gets appealed to the SCOTUS will Justice Roberts again vote with the liberals just to “get along” like he did on Obamacare?

You misunderstand, Roberts wasn't ruling with liberals, he was ruling with wall street crony capitalists when it came to obamacare. It just so happened that liberals and big insurance were on the same page that day.

Judges and politicians will display partisanship when it comes to the little things, but they - both sides of the aisle - are lockstep when it comes to increasing government and decreasing Freedom. Pretty much the Soros/Bilderberg agenda.

And they are freaked out right now about Rand Paul the way they were about Sarah Palin.

29 posted on 01/26/2013 6:29:20 AM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I see a conundrum...

In the case of these appointments, the Senate would have confirmed the appointees by a simple majority vote. But they were being held up by Filibuster. Are you suggesting the Filibuster should not be available for appointment nominees? Or does it become understood the threshold for nominees is now 60 votes?


30 posted on 01/26/2013 6:46:13 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: One Name

http://landmarklegal.org/uploads/RecessAppointmentBriefFinal_Updated12_5.pdf

Above is a link to Landmark’s Amicus Brief to the court which directly led to the decision. I am no lawyer but its easy to understand (begin at page 17, paragraph B of the Argument section). Bottom line is many past presidents had violated the spirit and intent of the “recess” clause yet none had ever declared the Senate in recess to open the way for appointments like this administration did; clear over reach and unconstitutional.

Regards.


31 posted on 01/26/2013 6:47:19 AM PST by Sine_Pari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Barack Obama breached the constitution when he bypassed Congress to make appointments to a labour relations panel, a federal appeal court ruled on Friday in a decision that was condemned by the White House as "novel and unprecedented".

So, have the three been removed from their positions pending appeal? Didn't think so. I smell dog and pony poop.

32 posted on 01/26/2013 6:50:26 AM PST by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The problem is that Obama is bahaving like Hugo Chavez without the street thugs to back him up (I am sure he is working on that).


33 posted on 01/26/2013 6:56:59 AM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
-- Are you suggesting the Filibuster should not be available for appointment nominees? Or does it become understood the threshold for nominees is now 60 votes? --

The reality has been, for quite some time, that a minority of the body can prevent the body from acting. I think that is dysfunctional. If a minority of the senate can prevent confirmation, then a minority in the senate assumes more power than the majority, and steps on the president's power to nominate and appoint.

So, yes, I am suggesting that the filibuster is inappropriate when the action of the senate is part of the process of staffing the executive department. That 60 vote threshold is set by senate rule - what if it was set at 75?

The constitution does set up a supermajority requirement for ratification of treaties, for amending the constitution, and for overriding a presidential veto. But it does not have a supermajority requirement for confirmation.

When the subject is legislation, the congress can set up whatever it wants, except I think a rule that less than a majority can pass a law would not stand up.

34 posted on 01/26/2013 7:01:02 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

We have a President who willfully violated The Constitution. He has been told as much by a federal court by unanimous decision. When do the impeachment hearings begin...........(crickets)....?

If I recall correctly isn’t BO still in contempt of court for the Gulf drilling moretorium?


35 posted on 01/26/2013 7:18:45 AM PST by PJammers (I can't help it... It's my idiom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I’ll be suprised if the SCOTUS reverses the 7th Distric Appeals Court. Suck it up Barry.


36 posted on 01/26/2013 8:34:57 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I think doing away with the filibuser invites a situation where the majority can simply steamroller the minority, and that’s what the rule is there to prevent. The rule resists changing because most of the majority understands that one day the shoe will be on the other foot.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Mob rule is to be resisted.

That’s just my humble opinion. A good case can be made for keeping the filibuster for statutes and removing it for staffing the Executive branch. But I’m not convinced yet. If this ruling from the court (assuming it stands up in SCOTUS) that only candidates that are nominated during *the* recess can be recess appointed, then this filibuster rule needs to be considered.


37 posted on 01/26/2013 11:21:09 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
-- I think doing away with the filibuser invites a situation where the majority can simply steamroller the minority, and that's what the rule is there to prevent. --

Actually, the nominal function of cloture (and there is a parallel in Roberts Rules of Order) is to prevent the majority from denying a minority from being heard. Deliberative bodies are supposed to deliberate, argue, present arguments, and then VOTE. Majority rules.

The parallel from Robert's Rules of Order Online ...

There has been established as a compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the assembly the principle that a two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion that suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; or prevents the introduction of a question for consideration; or closes, or limits, or extends the limits of debate; or limits the freedom of nomination or voting; or closes nominations or the polls; or deprives one of membership or office.
The senate's use of the cloture rule to effectively impose a supermajority requirement for passage is dysfunction.

The use of a supermajority to limit the minority's right to debate is common. When a cloture motion fails, the procedural meaning is not that the subject has been rejected. The procedural meaning is that debate remains open.

38 posted on 01/26/2013 11:35:19 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: virgil
If the office has been vacant for 3 years like in your example, there’s no excuse for making an appointment during a recess. Presidents have been abusing the recess appointment thing for decades.

Your point conforms with the plain language and original intent of the Constitution. The recess appointment was designed as a temporary measure to allow continuity of the government at times when the Senate was not available to consider appointments. It was not designed to get around the confirmation process or to allow the President to act unilaterally when the Senate refused to do as he wanted.

One of the major problems with contemporary society as well as modern government is our tendency to place a greater value on finding and exploiting loopholes than on accepting and complying with established rules even if we don't like them. The current administration is taking contempt for established order to a new high.

39 posted on 01/26/2013 1:28:18 PM PST by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson