Skip to comments.Breaking: Supreme Court to review Obama recess appointments
Posted on 06/24/2013 8:07:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Because they were made when the Senate was, in fact, in recess.
Only the Obama administration has chosen to claim the Senate was in recess when the Senate said it was not.
The surprise, if there is one, is the delay in the Supreme Courts 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 NLRBs 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.What does he have on them? It's clear he has nothing but disdain for the Supreme Court.
This should be addressed IMMEDIATELY (the illegal unconstitutional recess appointments,) it's a matter of utmost importance.
Putting it off for a year is putting it off until Obama is out of office.
Because they were not in recess.
Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Review Board were when HE said Congress was in recess, not when Congress formally recessed. He appointed people under the recess rule when Congress has just met, but hadn’t approved who he wanted in time to make rulings for various union disputes.
Simple, when Obama made his “recess” appointments, Congress was not in recess.
But, but 0bama is a Constitutional Scholar! Why wouldn’t he know better than to try to do Unconstitutional things?
Bwaaa-Haa-Haa!!!! I totally crack myself UP...
To pick up this constitutionally arcane and politically laden issue suggests to me the Supremes are inclined to narrow if not outright eliminate the power grab of the executive branch through recess appointments
Recess appointments are "fine" for any president whenever our national legislature is really in recess.
Clearly, that was not the case here...
Yep, I’m sure they’ve got something good on him or they’re paying him some serious stimulus cash. We can only guess but it must be good.
Because the Senate was in recess when those recess appointments were made. Obama made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and claimed for himself the power to declare when the Senate was or was not in session.
It has been suggested the adoption of his kids would be questioned and he could lose them. Robert’s children are adopted. Have no idea if this is true or not, but that is the rumor.
The Supreme Court needs to buy a clue. The intent of presidential recess appointments was not to do an end around the confirmation process. It was to enable presidents to fill critical positions when congress was not reasonably available, as in days when travel was extremely time consuming.
In modern times, there is NO parallel requiring recess appointment power at all. If anything, the Senate has used an anti-constitutional rule itself to bring about any problem with appointments....the filibuster. The word is no place in the US Constitution. If anything, it is a cute by half amending of the Constitution that actually ruins the proper functioning of the government.
Are you going to acknowledge any of the replies to your post?
Well... see number 17
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.