WASHINGTON — In a ruling that called into question nearly two centuries of presidential recess appointments that bypass the Senate confirmation process, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Obama violated the Constitution when he installed three officials on the National Labor Relations Board a year ago.
The ruling was a blow to the administration and a victory for Obama’s Republican critics — and a handful of liberal ones — who had accused him of improperly asserting that he could make the appointments under his executive powers. The administration had argued that the president could decide that senators were really on a lengthy recess even though the Senate considered itself to be meeting in ‘‘pro forma’’ sessions.
Comments
" Legal specialists said its reasoning would virtually eliminate the recess appointment power for all future presidents at a time when it has become increasingly difficult to win Senate confirmation for nominees." That is the clue that this particular court decision was made by Republican hacks with more interest in scoring political points than in interpreting the Constitution in a reasonable manner. It is reminiscent of the silly decisions that Obamacare was not Constitutional, a proposition which even the very conservative John Roberts had to reject.
Or, perhaps, by some legal scholars (unlike Obama and most of his puppet court) who may have actually read and understood the Constitution....
Liberal definition of "reasonable": OUR way, or we will start name calling.
I was going to ask why this wasn't an issue for GWB's 171 recess appointments, but this quote answers the question. Wow. Just wow.
"The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by a Pepsi-Cola bottler from Washington state that challenged a National Labor Relations Board decision against the company in a labor dispute. The bottler argued, and the court agreed, that the three Obama appointments were invalid and that the five-seat board lacked a quorum to take any action."
Hmm.
The dictator doesn't like being told he can't do whatever he wants...
Hmmmm . . . . . . According to the article, George Bush exercised more than FIVE TIMES the number of recess appointments than Obama. So, are you referring to Bush when you use the word "dictator"? Or do you really mean Cheney, that rascally old puppetmaster?
Possibly one of the dumbest things thecpt has ever posted. And that's saying something...
"" Legal specialists said its reasoning would virtually eliminate the recess appointment power for all future presidents at a time when it has become increasingly difficult to win Senate confirmation for nominees." WHOSE "Legal Specialists" ? Ones like MA's Elizabeth Warren who also tried to get on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau via a recess appointment? And notice how all of a sudden the liberal news media complains about a court decision that goes against them...Recall that the media and Barack Obama himself were regularly BASHING the Supreme Court over its expected rejection of ObamaCare. Then when John Roberts changed his mind, Time Magazine and other magazines were considering calling him "Man of the Year".
"And notice how all of a sudden the liberal news media complains about a court decision that goes against them" -- ????? Mikie, where do you see that? This ruling happened YESTERDAY, Mikie, and it qualifies as NEWS. So, it's being reported by the local newspaper today. So, "all of a sudden"? Huh? And "complains"? Where is that, Mikie? The article quotes a spokesman from the George Bush administration. Is he liberal, and "complaining"? I suggest you go back and re-read the article. You seem, in your fury against the "liberal news media", to have read into the article items that aren't there.
Also, as this article points out, this will affect presidents of both parties going forward, and presidents of both parties have exercised this executive order element for almost two hundred years. So, don't keep jumping on the scary "liberals". This is bigger than than.
In fairness, I don't think miker6 ever reads past the headlines.
And speaking of rulings being invalidated by lack of a quorum, don't expect the complaining liberal press to remind you about Wiscinsin's new law that makes public employee union dues optional. That law was held up because all Senate Democrats walked out so that the meeting lacked a QUORUM. The press was quite pleased with that situation.
Forbes provides more detail on this ...
The ruling also represents blowback for Democrats from a parliamentary maneuver they dreamed up to keep President George W. Bush from making recess appointments during his administration. To technically keep the Senate in session, Democrats sent one of their members to the chamber each day.
“Now the tables are turned,” said Babson. “George Bush chose not to challenge that (by making recess appointments) and President Obama did.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/25/dc-court-rejects-obamas-recess-appointments-to-labor-board/
Please...liberals must never be held accountable for what they do.
You are only supposed to judge a liberal by what they are saying at this VERY moment...you cannot go back and look at anything they might have done in the past...nor can you study this moment and hold it against them in the future.
Please.
So you're saying the GOP judges made this ruling in retaliation for a Democrat parlimentary procedure? That makes it even worse. What is a Democaracy without the rule of law? Clearly you and thecpt don't care. Sad and sickening.
shocking.
It amazes me, as a former law librarian with great respect for the law, to see judges making decisions obviously not based on precedent, but rather on partisan motivation.
The intensity of the partisan divide in this country is destroying our institutions which keep this nation on the sane course of history.
This decision, when appealed, will not stand, I believe.
It would cripple any president, no matter his party affiliation, from being able to function.
People need to get a grip these days and stop trolling their pathetic fairy tales.
Our government and its institutions cannot continue this way over the long haul, if we want our country to survive.