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.
'Acted in poor faith' meaning lied like the lying punk he is.
Good to see Scalia taking a strong stand against Democratic Recess Appointments.
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.
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.
Anyone care to bet that a “special message” from Valerie Jarrett will soon be delivered to Justice Roberts?
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.
No one can find the Anti-Christ guilty of anything. Jesus said it would be this way
He lies like a muslim prayer rug!
Exactly. The more Obama pushes, the more he realizes there is no one who is going to stop him. Very dangerous.
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?
The who DESERVED to be Chief Justice instead of Bush II’s disgusting little wimp.
“My Grandfather’s Son”
I think that's better.
Thus we have, an Imperial President.
American Republic RIP -1/20/2008
Actually the year is 2009
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.
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.
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. :)
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.