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

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Supreme Court to review Obama recess appointments
Hotair ^ | 06/24/2013 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 06/24/2013 8:07:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-66 last
To: hattend
Just for argument’s sake...why were recess appointments fine for earlier Presidents but not for Obama?

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.

51 posted on 06/24/2013 10:30:16 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
This is ridiculous.
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.
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.

52 posted on 06/24/2013 10:32:40 AM PDT by Syncro ("So?" - -Andrew Breitbart --The King of All Media RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Just for argument’s sake...why were recess appointments fine for earlier Presidents but not for Obama?

Because they were not in recess.

53 posted on 06/24/2013 10:34:54 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Revenge is a dish best served with pinto beans and muffins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hattend

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.


54 posted on 06/24/2013 10:35:11 AM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hattend

Simple, when Obama made his “recess” appointments, Congress was not in recess.


55 posted on 06/24/2013 11:26:52 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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...


56 posted on 06/24/2013 12:33:42 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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


57 posted on 06/24/2013 1:20:57 PM PDT by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Just for argument’s sake...why were recess appointments fine for earlier Presidents but not for Obama?

Recess appointments are "fine" for any president whenever our national legislature is really in recess.

Clearly, that was not the case here...

58 posted on 06/24/2013 2:40:16 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Prole

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.


59 posted on 06/24/2013 6:00:07 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Just for argument’s sake...why were recess appointments fine for earlier Presidents but not for Obama?

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.

60 posted on 06/24/2013 7:34:57 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

for later


61 posted on 06/24/2013 9:58:51 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


62 posted on 06/25/2013 11:16:56 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


63 posted on 06/25/2013 5:55:43 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hattend
So, just curious.

Are you going to acknowledge any of the replies to your post?

64 posted on 06/25/2013 6:32:57 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

Well... see number 17


65 posted on 06/25/2013 6:52:32 PM PDT by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Missed that........

Thanks!

66 posted on 06/25/2013 7:02:09 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-66 last

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