Skip to comments.HIGH COURT LIMITS PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENTS POWER
Posted on 06/26/2014 7:06:44 AM PDT by navysealdad
click here to read article
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.
That is what I would think is in play here. Businesses which have been negatively impacted by NLRB rulings should be able to go to court and apply for relief from having to abide by the rulings the NLRB made, even if the Senate later approved the appointees.
The majority opinion is kind of scary - says that longstanding practice between the two branches + “the ballot box” are legitimate tools to interpret the meaning of plain English.
Scalia, Alito, and Thomas’ concurrence is much better - but it only got 3 votes.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a blow to President Barack Obama by cutting back the power of the White House to temporarily fill senior government posts without Senate approval.
In a ruling that will constrain future presidents, the court held on a 9-0 vote that the three appointments Obama made to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2012 were unlawful. The decision limits the ability of presidents to make so-called recess appointments without Senate approval, although the court did not go as far as it could have gone in restricting a president’s powers.
The decision, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, could especially hamper the Obama administration if Republicans were to win control of the Senate in the November elections. They already control the House of Representatives. It also is likely to make it more difficult for the president to make appointments of his choosing during the last two years of his term.
Great—but the EPA gets to run rough-shod without checks and balances? Stupremes...
We have been done in by the cowardice of the GOPe once again.
Cowardice, or malfeasance?
Yes indeed a very large iceberg of corruption floating atop an apathetic sea.
For truly, this nation is full of apathetic morons who would rather be lazy with their own humanity, than do the hard work of answering the call to holiness, much less political truthfulness.
I have never so much wanted to be WRONG, as in what I predict in post 29. But sadly, I fear I’ll be proven right.
It’s not even worth it to call for revolution; no one will come for fear of missing the latest reality show.
Just as secession and the first shots by the democrat rebel scum was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
You are probably thinking of the President Jackson comment: “[SC Justice] Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
This was regarding the Indian policies of the Jackson era.
Not until Monday.
They rejected a tighter, constitutional interpretation of the recess appointment power of the president by a 5-4 vote.
The constitution actually says that the president has the power to make recess appointments for vacancies that occur during the recess. The justices rejected the clear wording of the constitution’s grammar in favor of a reading that says “the president can make appointments during the recess for vacancies that have occurred.”
They also reject the less clear reading of the Constitution that there is only one annual recess of the Senate.
*Section. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.**
***Section 5. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. ***
Let them enforce it.
Obama will ignore it.
Obama said he made the appointments in the face of Republican refusal to allow the NLRB to function.
Still playing the blame game....but....that DOES NOT give him the right to violate the constitution any time he pleases.
You would think that being a supposed professor of constitutional law he would have SOME concept of what is written in the constitution.
Monday. Last day.
This is going to be so stressful on Obama that he may have to up his T-time by a couple of hours.
It seems to me, from reading here on Free Republic, that there are quite a few advocating for secession right now ... :-) ...
These particular advocates of that, on Free Republic, seem to think it’s entirely Constitutional.
Are they waking up to what this a**le is doing to this country?
I was aware of that one, when I made the statement about Lincoln. I have read it somewhere else about Lincoln, and when I read it, I also thought about your example.
Exactly! As important as this ruling is (and it's VERY important), it pales in comparison to the Hobby Lobby decision.
How, in any rational way could any actions taken against the confederacy and the confederate states be unconstititutional? Those states abandoned that Constitution and declared that it no longer applied to them. To claim that it was unconstitutional would mean that the Constitution does not apply to them any longer but if you do something they don’t like then it does apply to them. The democrat party still uses that false argument today.
A full 30 to 40% of our fellow Americans will support this President and his political party no matter what crimes are committed by them or their drones in the bureaucracy (see the IRS and EPA) . The media will make sure to make them sound like the majority of the country and will continue to make sure the GOP remains the party that is scared of it’s own shadow. Impeachment WILL NEVER happened no matter how high the crimes and misdemeanors. Poor Richard Nixon must be spinning around in his grave. Democrats and their minions are fully exempt from constitutional checks and balances. They will find a way to circumvent this court ruling too.
I’m no fan of the South in the civil war, I’m glad the North won for the simple fact that slavery is an evil, an objective evil that cannot be tolerated in a human society.
But I’ve never heard that secession was un-Constitutional. In fact the impression I got from my history lessons in high school (a public school at that) is that it was entirely Constitutional.
I really don’t know the facts there. I’m open to arguments from either side.
Libs naturally saying the decision is racist.
51 was for judicial appointments only.
and, it will eventually help us too.
Those advocating secession are ignorant and like the proponents in 1860 are fooling themselves. It didn’t work when they had contiguous states and were able to convince the ignorant non-slaveholding poor to support the democrat planter’s personal economic cause. It is a fool’s pursuit that indicates abandonment of the Republic and the Constitution.
There may be a need to take actions to throw out the tyrant and the tyrant’s party but those actions would have to be more of the form of a REV2.
With 51 certain votes in the Senate, Reid can expand the nuclear option to include any presidential appointees he wants.
All McConnell and company will do is whine about it.
All I can say about that is there was a US Supreme Court decision saying that his actions were Unconstitutional, and he basically ignored the decision. That’s simply a fact of history.
So, there is precedent for a President to ignore a US Supreme Court decision which says a President’s actions are Unconstitutional.
Maybe SCOTUS is actually fulfilling its responsibilities by protecting the Constitution and the separation of powers. They are sending a message to Obama that his abuse of power will not go unanswered. A shot across the bow.
**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.**
And many others!
Temper tantrum time. Will he kick the door again?
Madison versus Marbury
I wish I didn’t think this is just so much more show for the sheeple. Especially since it is unanimous. Same goes for boneheads suing the pos in the white hut. I’m sure that to was all discussed measured and focus group tested and screened before release.
We are being played in every respect to keep us from rising up against our overlords and to keep making us so weak we are no threat at all. They have to keep us working for them. Slaves are all we are. They just have to give us enough bones to keep us going and thinking things are just acceptable.
Where in the Constitution is there any explict right given to the states to secede? The states bound themselves to the Republic and the Constitution when they ratified the document or when they petitioned and were awarded statehood.
The isn’t any “tap-out” clause I know of. Again, secession, especially today, is an ignorant concept doomed to failure.
KUDOS to the SUPREMES!!!
Could they be the only people with any power in this Nation who have BACKBONES??
You really think this will stop The One? He has a phone and a pen.
He may finally go beyond clumsy teleprompterless rambling...and finally “go” utterly speechless.....
prepare for the video “footage” of the decade!!
speaking of PROMPTS....this may well prompt MOOCH to post another Hashtag Photo
The supreme court of his time was made up of justices who were appointed by his predecessors who had declared for rulings such as Dred Scott. Their ruling had NOTHING to do with constitutionality and had no basis under the Constitution. The majority of his SC were blatant supporters of slavery.
“You really think this will stop The One? He has a phone and a pen.”
Chances are about fifty fifty!
there’s always the POSSIBILITY that he may at some point hit THE WALL!!!
There will be no overt ignoring of this ruling by Obama. And since Reid has implemented the nuclear option on appointments, Reid will rush to fill the vacant positions prior to the midterms or during the lame duck session. Obama will expedite all appointments should the Reps gain control of the Senate in the midterms.