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

Skip to comments.

Scalia slams Obama
The Daily Caller ^ | 1-13-2014 | Christopher Bedford

Posted on 01/13/2014 5:28:55 PM PST by servo1969

On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia slammed President Barack Obama’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution during oral arguments over Recess appointments.

The case, National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning, is over whether the president acted legally when he made a series of temporary appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not conducting business but still gavelling in and out every day.

Clause three of the Constitution’s section on presidential powers states that, “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.”

At issue is if the president acted in poor faith by saying the Senate was not in session. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that the Constitution is ambiguous on the subject.

“It’s been assumed to be ambiguous by self-interested presidents,” Scalia replied. After Scalia’s retort, the court room was filled with “oohs” and laughter, Talking Points Memo reports.

Since the National Labor Relations Board conflict, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has broken centuries of tradition by allowing Senate approval for appointments by majority vote, thereby making the case less consequential to Senate procedure.

But if the Supreme Court rules against the White House, the board’s executive actions will no longer be valid.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: obama; scalia; scotus; tyranny

1 posted on 01/13/2014 5:28:55 PM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969
At issue is if the president acted in poor faith by saying the Senate was not in session.

'Acted in poor faith' meaning lied like the lying punk he is.

2 posted on 01/13/2014 5:34:40 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Good to see Scalia taking a strong stand against Democratic Recess Appointments.


3 posted on 01/13/2014 5:36:40 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

In all the written copy and yik-yak about this today, I haven’t come across anyone who elaborated why the President doesn’t have carte blanche to appoint who he wants without senatorial consent.


4 posted on 01/13/2014 5:37:32 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

So the SCOTUS rules against Obama on these appointments, Obama could easily ignore the court’s ruling with impunity. What would be the consequences of Obama stonewalling the decision? Certainly there would be no possibility of him being impeached as the GOP leadership would never permit it and the Democrat held Senate would never vote to remove him from office. Obama could just do business as usual, not replace these appointees and thumb his nose at the Constitution without any consequence.


5 posted on 01/13/2014 5:38:16 PM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Anyone care to bet that a “special message” from Valerie Jarrett will soon be delivered to Justice Roberts?


6 posted on 01/13/2014 5:39:06 PM PST by VRWCarea51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Justices Scalia and Thomas are the real deal. It’s too bad we don’t have their likes in the political arena. Instead we get empty-headed cowards masquerading as stalwart conservatives.


7 posted on 01/13/2014 5:42:30 PM PST by Conservative Beacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Scalia slams Obama

In a more perfect world, inmate Obama would be slamming President Scalia.
8 posted on 01/13/2014 5:49:34 PM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands (Conservative 2016!! The Dole, H.W. Bush, McCain, Romney experiment has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

No one can find the Anti-Christ guilty of anything. Jesus said it would be this way


9 posted on 01/13/2014 5:52:17 PM PST by realcleanguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

He lies like a muslim prayer rug!


10 posted on 01/13/2014 5:57:30 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

Exactly. The more Obama pushes, the more he realizes there is no one who is going to stop him. Very dangerous.


11 posted on 01/13/2014 6:02:25 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

JUSTICE SCALIA: So we have to — we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico. Is that what you’re saying?


12 posted on 01/13/2014 6:04:01 PM PST by ObamahatesPACoal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

The who DESERVED to be Chief Justice instead of Bush II’s disgusting little wimp.


13 posted on 01/13/2014 6:15:09 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Beacon

“My Grandfather’s Son”


14 posted on 01/13/2014 6:29:14 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
like the lying punk puke he is.

I think that's better.

15 posted on 01/13/2014 6:37:11 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

Thus we have, an Imperial President.

American Republic RIP -1/20/2008


16 posted on 01/13/2014 6:47:44 PM PST by lormand (Inside every liberal is a dung slinging monkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Actually the year is 2009


17 posted on 01/13/2014 6:49:18 PM PST by lormand (Inside every liberal is a dung slinging monkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

Won’t happen that way. He’ll nominate them again and let the Senate confirm via majority vote.

Don’t get me wrong, this President has no problem thumbing his nose at the Constitution. He’s just not going to do it in full view if he doesn’t have to.


18 posted on 01/13/2014 6:50:07 PM PST by Honcho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
I haven’t come across anyone who elaborated why the President doesn’t have carte blanche to appoint who he wants without senatorial consent.

The reason for senate-involvement is to provide a normalizing force — consider the reason that most conservatives wouldn't vote for Ron Paul as president "he's got terrible foreign-policy" [or 'military-policy' or similar]. Well, that's the reason for Senate involvement: so that those other positions are filled with people that are acceptable to the President as well as the States themselves [via Senators], that way you can have a guy who's brilliant with some stuff [but not with others] be President.

19 posted on 01/13/2014 7:08:29 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

My understanding is the president presides over the executive branch, which executes the laws delivered up by the legislative branch composed of the House and the Senate.

The Constitution does protect the states from an imperial president who would appoint imperialistic men to make law by fiat against the people. The Constitution instituted “Advise and Consent” by the Senate to all appointments.

I have a feeling Cspan will air the Supreme Court hearing of today, so we can watch and all learn. Hope so. I want to see it. :)


20 posted on 01/13/2014 7:38:11 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

My understanding is the president presides over the executive branch, which executes the laws delivered up by the legislative branch composed of the House and the Senate.

The Constitution does protect the states from an imperial president who would appoint imperialistic men to make law by fiat against the people. The Constitution instituted “Advise and Consent” by the Senate to all appointments.

I have a feeling Cspan will air the Supreme Court hearing of today, so we can watch and all learn. Hope so. I want to see it. :)


21 posted on 01/13/2014 7:39:25 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

At least there is one Supreme Court justice who didn’t adopt his children illegally from Ireland.


22 posted on 01/13/2014 7:40:42 PM PST by ottbmare (the OTTB mare, now a proud Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

Not video, but perhaps audio.


23 posted on 01/13/2014 7:46:54 PM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: servo1969; dandiegirl; All

THE SUMMER OF 2014:
______________________
______________________

Today is the last watershed day for America, because it is the last chance for the US Supreme Court to exercise a Constitutional Check and Balance on the current rogue, tyrannical and oppressive Federal Administration.

Chief Justice John “Traitor” Roberts will probably again refuse to abide with the clear Constitutional Law, and again rewrite the US Constitution to his own liking, in similar manner to what Roberts did with the Constitutionality of the Obamacare Case when he un-Constutionally converted a legal fine into an illegal tax.

Today the US Supreme Court takes up the issue of whether or not an Administration can act without Congressional Approval on matters relating to personnel appointments.

The topic of bypassing the House on approving the spending of taxpayer’s dollars by the Administration will not be considered today, except tangentially, as the appointed personnel will be paid with taxpayer dollars, which would be a bypassing of the Constitutional Control of the Purse by the US House of Representatives.

We taxpayers view this as a clear cut case where we have “Taxation Without Representation” because our Representatives have not been part of the decision-making process.

Examples of a few Imperial matters of record include the following:
* Senator Reid’s Democrats recent voting to turn the US Congress into the US Parliament,
* Boehner’s refusal to appoint House Special Prosecutors for each of the Five Obama Administration Scandals,
* Obama’s four years of Imperial actions, and
* the recent history, ( Traitor Roberts’ Obamacare decision), of the US Supreme Court’s proven reluctance to provide their Constitutional duty of a Check and Balance on the other two Branches of the US Federal Government.

With the usual US Supreme Court private straw vote today that always follows the 30 minute Official Hearing before the Court, America’s future fate will be sealed, and later proclaimed between now and the Summer of 2014.

Either way that the NINE SUPREMES rule on this case, “The Summer of 2014” will prove to be the Summer that decided whether or not our Founding Fathers fought King George the Third of England in vain - - - .

____________________
____________________

THE SUMMER OF 2014.


24 posted on 01/13/2014 7:47:35 PM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

He does have carte blanche — when the Senate is in recess. In this case, the Senate was still in session.


25 posted on 01/13/2014 7:51:30 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - Eclipse, the sequel to Bright Horizons is out! Get it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

Really? Cspan did not film today’s hearing?

Write my name down and ping me, if you can, how to hear it.


26 posted on 01/13/2014 8:15:03 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

This one should be 9-0, because it’s super obvious that recess appointments can only be made when Congress is in recess.


27 posted on 01/13/2014 8:44:24 PM PST by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK; OneWingedShark; Anitius Severinus Boethius
Recall our Declaration of Independence listed almost thirty kingly, executive branch abuses of George III.

We colonists had a real hard time with some of his ministers, people appointed by, and responsible to the king alone.

We were so apprehensive if not fearful over executive power, the Articles of Confederation didn't even provide for one, and during the federal convention in Philly, the delegates wouldn't use the word, "President" until the convention was nearly finished. We knew that power was an intoxicant, and carefully limited the power of the executive.

American ministers and judges were to be responsible to the constitution, not to the person of the president. With a senate looking over his shoulder, and needing its consent, it was less likely the president would appoint cronies, evil men with criminal pasts.

Also unlike king George and his ministers, our president and appointed officers could be impeached and removed from office.

We are very close to what the constitution was designed to prevent, an untouchable kingly president with prerogatives to make law, and make ministers, judges his personal property.

Obama declared the senate to be in recess so as to appoint dirtbags that rightfully were denied consent. This is clearly an impeachable offense.

Fifty years before our revolution, we knew very well the danger of too much power in one man. See Cato's Letters.

28 posted on 01/14/2014 1:29:00 AM PST by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: grundle
This one should be 9-0, because it’s super obvious that recess appointments can only be made when Congress is in recess.

Just like the ACA should have clearly been rejected?

If that craptacular ruling is repeated I fully expect a line of reasoning like this:

  1. The president has the power to make recess appointments w/o the Senate.
  2. recess
    noun
    1. temporary withdrawal or cessation from the usual work or activity.
    2. a period of such withdrawal.
    3. a receding part or space, as a bay or alcove in a room.
    4. an indentation in a line or extent of coast, hills, forest, etc.
    5. recesses, a secluded or inner area or part: in the recesses of the palace.
  3. Given that the appointments were made after the senate had quit for business, the senate was technically in a recess.
  4. Therefore the appointment stands.

29 posted on 01/14/2014 8:19:39 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

"Now the Senate is looking for 'moderate' judges, 'mainstream' judges.

What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text?

Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"

~Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Address to Chapman University students in 2005




Please click the pic


30 posted on 01/14/2014 8:21:55 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

These appointments are supposed to serve the whole of “We, the People”...not the platform of a political party.


31 posted on 01/14/2014 11:31:43 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

The appoinments would only be temporary anyways.


32 posted on 01/14/2014 11:35:45 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
These appointments are supposed to serve the whole of “We, the People”...not the platform of a political party.

Right, though with the indirection of the several States, which is why the Senate is involved.
Remember that the original purpose of the Senate [prior the 17th Amendment] was to provide the States themselves representation in the federal government. Because there are things delegated by the States to the federal government that have a profound effect on the States (like treaties) is the reason that the Senate is the one that provides approval/consent. (Each State represented equally, rather than unequally by population if it were the Representatives.)

33 posted on 01/14/2014 11:59:01 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

You are correct. Mark Levine said tonight that the Constitution was designed to prevent the very actions Obama has initiated, by the power of impeachment.

Obama’s power is strengthened by Harry Reid’s totalitarian rule of the senate, which the framers never envisioned, that states would ever voluntarily give up their constitutional state rights, through the nefarious works of state senators and representatives.

He added that the Democrats were no longer a party, but now purified into a philosophical movement— a silent coup in place.


34 posted on 01/14/2014 5:55:26 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | 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