Skip to comments.Breaking: Supreme Court to review Obama recess appointments
Posted on 06/24/2013 8:07:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It won’t be for a while, as this session of the Supreme Court will come to an end this week with the release of its most controversial decisions of the term. However, next year, the court will hear arguments on what constitutes a recess, and how much power the President has to make appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate:
President Obama’s recess appointments to a federal agency– made without Senate confirmation– will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, a major constitutional test of executive power. …
The case sets up a high-stakes Supreme Court fight between the other two branches of government. Oral arguments will be held in public session later this year or early next.
This was inevitable, since the White House made it clear that it would not accept the decision of an appellate court that not only struck down Barack Obama’s appointments to the NLRB (and Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), but also severely limited recess-appointment power overall. A second appellate decision didn’t go quite as far in May, but still negated the NLRB’s work since those appointments.
The surprise, if there is one, is the delay in the Supreme Court’s acceptance and consideration of the case. The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court in March after the first decision, and the White House has obstinately refused to recognize the legal implications of the decision on the NLRB’s work throughout 2012. That creates a lot of confusion about compliance issues, which would seem to argue for rapid consideration rather than wait for months or perhaps more than a year for clarification.
Does this hint that the court will pull back a little from the first appellate decision to severely restrict the definition of recess appointments? I’d be careful about making that assumption. If the court wanted to endorse that definition, they could have declined to hear the case, which would have left that as precedent — albeit a relatively weak precedent. They also may want to strengthen the precedent by having the top court issue a definitive opinion, and with the obvious constitutional issues at play — especially in the checks and balances between the legislature and executive branches on agency law — the court may have decided that they cannot avoid the question. Other appellate and district court decisions have muddied the waters on this point as well, so clarity will be appreciated. If they wanted to redefine the appellate decision, that would argue for emergency consideration; for now, the appellate decision stands.
This is one of those executive-legislature fights that traditionally both have sought to keep out of the courts for fear of ending up with a black-and-white decision that allows for no ambiguity (executive privilege is another). It’s difficult to see the Supreme Court deciding that the executive branch can determine better than the legislature when the latter is in or out of session, though This White House — and those that succeed it — will probably end up regretting the obstinacy that pushed them to have the Supreme Court definitively rule on this issue.
How about reviewing the fraudulent BC while they’re at it?
Just for argument’s sake...why were recess appointments fine for earlier Presidents but not for Obama?
Already used SigInt intercepts to bully Roberts inti Obamacare...
Gisv I WONDER what will come of this...
“The case sets up a high-stakes Supreme Court fight between the other two branches of government.”
God a vast fortune is spent by the taxpayer in efforts to protect itself simply from its “three equal” branches of government.
This is truly sad and out of hand.
President Obama made three so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) while the Senate was not in recess. These appointments were unprecedentedno other president has made recess appointments while the Senate was in session.
What difference does it make? He’ll just blackmail Roberts again.
All presidents have had the authority to make recess appointments when Congress is adjourned.
Obama did it while Congress was NOT adjourned.
Sounds like cowardice to me.
It's not whether recess appointments are acceptable.
It's about what constitutes a recess. The Senate never officially recessed, but Obama basically declared they were in recess and made the appointments.
Because Baraq made his while the Senate was not in recess. End of argument.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“What difference does it make? Hell just blackmail Roberts again.”
Yup. His reply will always be “yes, master obama.”
You didn’t hear about what Obama did? He declared the senate to be in recess, when it wasn’t. Because only the senate can declare itself in recess. Obama declared it was, anyway, and appointed people he wanted. A lower federal court than SCOTUS already weighed in and said it was unconstitutional/illegal, but Obama blew off the ruling and those people still sit in their appointive jobs today.
Thanks for the clarification
I had forgotten the details.
Because they were made while Congress was in session (so not recess) and just called ‘recess appointments.’
Earlier recess appointments were made when congress was in actually in recess. Obama did it while congress was not in recess. In other words he appointed who he wanted outside the law and through down a challenge to the other branches to do something about it. If he wins this without repercussions, he is truly a dictator.
It’s about freaking time ... where are the other challenges to the unconstitutional actions of the Obama regime? the pace is glacial.
Chief Justice Roberts will rule that the appointments are a “tax.”
Because Congress was in recess for earlier Presidents, it wasn't when Obama made the appointments.
Congress alone gets to determine when it is in recess, but President Obama declared them in recess over a long weekend and made the appointments. That is what this case is about.
What a job. Work a couple months and have 10 off. Opposite of a teacher.
If I recall correctly “recess” appointments were previously made while Congress was actually in recess, and were subject to apporval when they reconviened.
Otherwise just wait for every recess and appoint who you want.
And ever one of their decisions/opinions can be or will be challenged.
Seems like an open and shut case to me.
I'm still shaking my head at that one. Bet the decision on Marriage come out on the anniversary of that decision.
you do know what oabma did right?
Make appointments unlike any other past Presidents
what a smart constitutional professor, ARF
RE: What difference does it make? Hell just blackmail Roberts again.
What is there to blackmail? does anybody know something about Justice Roberts that most of us don’t?
Send in the Federal Marshals.
I think this is going to fail into one of those “the Senate can make it’s own rules” decisions and rule that they were illegal appointments.
It's not really a test of executive power. The president may make appointments when the Senate is in recess. The Senate was not in recess therefore the appointments need confirmation before they can take on their position. Obama was wrong in this.
Roberts has clearly been compromised via NSA/DHS/CIA/FBI/whatever other Orwellian groups are out there.
I suspect a bit of his dubious behavior can be traced to his mysterious, solitary "vacations" to Malta.
I still remember their ruling that Obamacare and forced participation in it is just fine and dandy and American as apple pie and baseball.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.These appointments were not to fill a vacancy, they were newly created positions IIRC. The language is clear "that may happen" means there is a person in the position and suddenly leaves, dies, or otherwise can not perform their duties in that position, then the President can make an appointment to fill that sudden vacancy. I would argue past recess appointments as well if the position was open when the Senate was in session and the President waited to fill it during a recess.
But, he said it was adjourned, so it was. The Emperor had spoken.
As if Congress would know if they were adjourned or not...that's why we need obama. He's the only one who can know.
I don't see why the One lets the SC tell him anything. They should learn how to read the constitution.
“Just for arguments sake...why were recess appointments fine for earlier Presidents but not for Obama?”
Just a wild guess, those recess appointments were made when the Senate was, in actual fact, in recess. But that’s just a guess.
That is the subject of a separate case, I believe in the Third Circuit IIRC, which interpreted the recess clause as you have stated. No recess appointments unless the vacancy occurs while the Senate is in recess.
I wish I had more confidence in the Supreme Court. Just tell John Roberts a lie and he’ll buy it. And this regime excels at lying.
obama’s appointments weren’t RECESS appointments. He took it upon HIMSELF to declare congress in recess so he could do what the wanted
once a cheater, always a cheater
I think it’s time that red states declare some of the SC’s decisions unconstitutional and refuse to follow them, and repeat for the fed gubmints laws and rules which violate State’s Rights. What’s good for the goose - if BO can ignore or make up his own laws, so can we. At least the states have that right - Big Brother has usurped our rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This is why they want to disarm us.
I wouldn’t expect anything good or just to come from SCOTUS ever again.
Roberts has clearly been compromised via NSA/DHS/CIA/FBI/whatever other Orwellian groups are out there.
I suspect a bit of his dubious behavior can be traced to his mysterious, solitary “vacations” to Malta.
with a little Reggie Love action.
I may be wrong but I think one of the rulings went farther than anyone expected. They ruled that the only recess was in between two separate sitting congresses, not in between normal breaks.
Normally, it is only when there is egregious abuse that the Supreme Court will agree to settle an argument between the other two branches. Even though a practice may not be in strict compliance with the constitution, the court will not step in unless one or the other goes too far. In this case, Oboma pushed beyond allowable limits, and the appeal court decided based on the constitution, not past practice. It is fairly clear that the original intent of the recess appointment power was to provide for continuity of government when the Senate was not physically available to consider appointments, not as a way to bypass the Senate when confirmation was unlikely or inconvenient. With a full time congress, recess appointments are actually no longer necessary and since the issue has been forced on them, the Supreme Court will likely rule that way.
Big freaking deal? Are people on this board still waiting for the Roberts court to do anything about Obama?
Roberts is another legacy gift of W.
The Senate will be in recess for the next 20 years.
The whole Obama planned Pesidency.