Skip to comments.HIGH COURT LIMITS PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENTS POWER
Posted on 06/26/2014 7:06:44 AM PDT by navysealdad
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has limited a president's power to make temporary appointments to fill high-level government jobs.
The court said Thursday that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he invoked the Constitution's provision on recess appointments to fill slots on the National Labor Relations Board in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
NLRB appointments ...
Any subsequent ruling the NLRB made after his appointments should be ruled invalid. Losers in the rulings should forthwith file suit.
If Obama ignores this ruling, then these are as clear a grounds as any for impeachment. It would be hard to spin that for the public.
The whole Administrative State is unconstitutional and needs to be summarily dismantled. It will take God's miracle to do that.
That miracle may very well be Jesus' own personal return and assumption of all governmental power, don't know.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
I have this nagging fear that they're throwing us a couple of bones before they lower the boom. I know that's cynical but after you get hit in the head enough you tend to duck when you see a fist.
And!! They just said the Mass. law on buffer zones at abortion clinics violates the 1st! Woo hoo!
Nope, the supposed quote is “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” regarding a decision about a Georgia law relating to control of indian lands. This was not a Lincoln pronouncement, at least with regard to presidential power that I can find. More likely a neo-confederate fantasy.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the powers of the presidency Thursday, ruling decisively that President Obama violated the Constitution by going around the Senate to name key labor and financial watchdogs.
“Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the president made the recess appointments before us during a break too short to count as recess,” Breyer said. “For that reason, the appointments are invalid.”
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the remaining four justices that a president’s recess appointments power should be limited far more than the court allowed, because the Senate always can be called back into session to confirm nominees.
“The majority practically bends over backward to ensure that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the president’s arsenal,” he said. “That is unfortunate, because the recess appointment power is an anachronism.”
All this Good News.....there must be something in the air......................
* However, when did USCourts become the final arbitor between USG branches?
* How does USJudicial branch become the most powerful of the three branches?
* This SCOTUS which typically splits (near) 50/50 on the most obvious and foundational USConstitutional issues, has now become the god of USG?
* How did SCOTUS climb to this height, based upon what _law_ other than (probably) precedence?
Well, Abraham Lincoln might not have said it, but he sure did ignore the US Supreme Court when in their decision they said what he was doing was UNCONSTITUTIONAL ... :-) ...
I think Landmark Legal was involved in getting this to Supreme Court inthe first place.
LandMark Legal is Mark Levin’s Legal organisation, FYI
Good Job Mark Levin!
You, me, and the rest of FR are all hoping so.
No Hobby Lobby today. Prognosticators say John Roberts will be the author of the majority decision in that case. Oh great...
Obama claims he’s a constitutional law expert. Another BO lie.
Washington (CNN) — The Supreme Court sided with Congress on Thursday in the high-stakes power struggle over presidential recess appointments, in which officials are placed in top government jobs temporarily without Senate approval.
The unanimous ruling by the court against the Obama administration could invalidate hundreds of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency at the center of this legal fight.
Jay Sekulow was on Fox and said that the NLRB rulings would be voided, but you do have a point. So Obama got away with everything anyway.