The high court's first-ever case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal. Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the president the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess.
Problem is, the court said, the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted.
Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break and that the brief sessions it held every three days — what lawmakers call "pro forma" — were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling seats on the NLRB.
The justices rejected that argument Wednesday.
Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.
I'm surprised it was a unanimous decision given how defiant Obama was in his actions.
Well we have to see if anything comes of it. This administrations seams to do whatever it pleases and even when told no by a court does it anyway or stalls until nobody cares.
In the real world, every decision or action by these people should be null, void and they should pay back any money paid immediately. Every person or entity that was harmed by any of these decisions should be made whole plus a punitive punishment. Obama should be personally liable for all of it with no protection by the government since he in fact acted under the color of authority. No pun intended and not even funny.
I completely agree with the SC on this. Their recess argument was bogus. I wonder if he will have to rescind the appointments. Teach them a lesson.
But when you have the GOP go on TV and say over and over they will block virtually everything the current president wants regardless of what it is - well, I too would ask for forgiveness too rather than permission. Nothing like setting the stage for this.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 06-26-2014).]
But never forget, impeach != automaic removal from office.
Clinton was impeached, you see how much of a problem it was for him.
An indictment doesn't mean an automatic sentence. You have to be convicted first. Clinton was acquitted.
Do people even know what "impeach" means?
quote
impeach: 1. to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office. 2. Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness. 3. to bring an accusation against. 4. to call in question; cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person's motives. 5. to call to account.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-26-2014).]
An indictment doesn't mean an automatic sentence. You have to be convicted first. Clinton was acquitted.
I did not hear that, i thought the charges stuck ( but i admit i didnt follow it real close, he was a pathetic loser and i didnt care to waste energy on him ). And i do know what impeach means.
I will go look for myself later, perhaps. ( he should have been run out of town on the back of a horse.. but that is a different story )
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 06-26-2014).]
Originally posted by Formula88: Do people even know what "impeach" means?
I do, and in order to Impeach a President there has to be a lot more than just not liking the guy, or being racist.
The problem then was the same as now. One branch would file the impeachment, the other would pass an acquittal, and proclaim it only happened because of racism. (then I believe it was because we didn't like President Clinton.)
The Clinton impeachment went a similar way, he had obviously lied under oath, and had obviously used his position to get away with it.
He was found guilty of contempt of court, and he for some reason settled with Paula Jones. IIRC he also lost his law license, and a few other things I'm not going to look up. Brad
If you don't feel like you did, probably nothing. For me, it's a little bit more interesting then "Obama did it!".
quote
Among recent presidents;
Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments. George H. W. Bush made 77. Bill Clinton made 139. George W. Bush made 171. and Obama has made 32.
Gen. (later President) Dwight Eisenhower, Judge (later Justice) Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan were all recess appointments.
The lawsuit leading the to the Supreme Court case was brought by Noel Canning, a family-owned Yakima, Washington, bottling company, which complained the board improperly ruled in favor of Teamsters Local 760 during contract negotiations. Company executives said the board lacked a binding quorum because the recess appointments made by Obama were not legal.
The Constitution allows a president to fill temporary appointments during a recess, without congressional approval. But more recently, lawmakers have sought to thwart certain appointments by never technically shutting down the Senate.
Since May 2011, Republicans have been relying on a little-known procedure to keep the Senate in session, even when it was not really conducting any business, in order to stop the President from making those recess appointments.
The legal basis comes from a 1993 Department of Justice brief saying the president should act only if the Senate is in official recess more than three days.
So, party leaders have arranged for a single Republican lawmaker to show up every three days and gavel the Senate to order, wait around for about 30 seconds, gavel it to a close, then leave.
That's far more interesting to me then "Dictator Obama does it again!"
It seems like our elected officials enjoy bending the rules to suit themselves, not us. Our employees are treating their job like it's some kind of game, or joke or something.
Well we have to see if anything comes of it. This administrations seams to do whatever it pleases and even when told no by a court does it anyway or stalls until nobody cares.
In the real world, every decision or action by these people should be null, void and they should pay back any money paid immediately. Every person or entity that was harmed by any of these decisions should be made whole plus a punitive punishment. Obama should be personally liable for all of it with no protection by the government since he in fact acted under the color of authority. No pun intended and not even funny.
What happens when Obama just thumbs his nose at the Supreme Court? What are they gonna do, call on the IG to arrest him?
Originally posted by boondawg: That's far more interesting to me then "Dictator Obama does it again!"
It seems like our elected officials enjoy bending the rules to suit themselves, not us. Our employees are treating their job like it's some kind of game, or joke or something.
That's the bigger story.
I wasn't aware the Republicans have been in charge of the Senate since 2011. Thought Harry Reid ran the Senate, and the dems had the Senate majority since at least 2008. I learn something new every day.
The really really bigger story here (apologies to Ed Sullivan) is that the Supreme Court, for the first time EVER, has officially recognized the executive branch's authority to make appointments during (real) Senate recess. SCOTUS has never done so in our entire history even tho Presidents as far back as Jefferson have made recess appointments.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-26-2014).]
I think the bottom line in this situation is that it is up to the Senate to decide when it is in session and not the President. I may be wrong, but I would have to think that it's up to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to gavel the Senate either in to or out of session. That article is inferring that any Senate member can call the Senate into session. That doesn't sound right to me. Again, I could be wrong.
I think the bottom line in this situation is that it is up to the Senate to decide when it is in session and not the President. I may be wrong, but I would have to think that it's up to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to gavel the Senate either in to or out of session. That article is inferring that any Senate member can call the Senate into session. That doesn't sound right to me. Again, I could be wrong.
That, is what I have always thought as well. Evidently, even Joe poop the ragman , any junior member of the Senate, or anyone else can bring the US Senate into session. Which is why I said "I learn something new every day."
Even if any Senate member can call the Senate into session, which I kinda doubt, they still have to be a member of the Senate. The President can't tell the Senate if they are or aren't in session. I would be pretty sure the same goes for the House. Whenever the time comes that there's a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, we'll see all of these arguments and fights again. Only the R's and D's will be switched.
Originally posted by Boondawg: For me, it's a little bit more interesting then "Obama did it!".
Obama is the only one who could have done it, .
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments. George H. W. Bush made 77. Bill Clinton made 139. George W. Bush made 171. and Obama has made 32. That's far more interesting to me then "Dictator Obama does it again!"
The amount of recess appointments has nothing to do with how they were done. The President wouldn't even be bothered with working with the Senate, campaigning for his choices, or consider ones which the Senate would approve. The same with his Executive Orders. It not the number of them compared to other Presidents. Again it's how they were done. To achieve more power to get his way by upsurping Congress, a Constitutional check and balance that our Founding Fathers knew we would need. Coincidence that you are the one who chose the term 'Dictator' ? Seemingly implying we did. The Supreme Court, in a nine to nothing vote, ruled that a President can not dictate Senate rules. Interesting is that the vote was nine to nothing. Moe interesting is that this is the thirteenth time the Supreme Court has ruled against the Dictator President Nobama nine to nothing.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: It seems like our elected officials enjoy bending the rules to suit themselves, not us. Our employees are treating their job like it's some kind of game, or joke or something. That's the bigger story.
No, that's to be expected suspected.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-27-2014).]
I think the bigger thing here is that SCOTUS voted UNANIMOUSLY that his recess appointments were illegal. Let that sink in. A "power checking" authority that very typically votes down progressive/conservative lines, voted 9-0 to invalidate Obama's recess appointments. That says a LOT more to me than the "game playing" by Congress. Just my $.02
The amount of recess appointments has nothing to do with how they were done. The President wouldn't even be bothered with working with the Senate, campaigning for his choices, or consider ones which the Senate would approve. The same with his Executive Orders. It not the number of them compared to other Presidents. Again it's how they were done. To achieve more power to get his way by upsurping Congress, a Constitutional check and balance that our Founding Fathers knew we would need. Coincidence that you are the one who chose the term 'Dictator' ? Seemingly implying we did. The Supreme Court, in a nine to nothing vote, ruled that a President can not dictate Senate rules. Interesting is that the vote was nine to nothing. Moe interesting is that this is the thirteenth time the Supreme Court has ruled against the Dictator President Nobama nine to nothing. No, that's to be expected suspected.
That is almost funny. That someone would think the number of recess appointments would make a difference. Just think about it a little while. Obama had a super majority for the first two years he was in office, and then he has retained a majority in the senate ever since. So he pretty much gets what ever he wants from the senate. That was certainly not true for the years that Reagan, and the two Bush's were in office. So just like always context makes a difference.
That is almost funny. That someone would think the number of recess appointments would make a difference. Just think about it a little while. Obama had a super majority for the first two years he was in office, and then he has retained a majority in the senate ever since. So he pretty much gets what ever he wants from the senate. That was certainly not true for the years that Reagan, and the two Bush's were in office. So just like always context makes a difference.
Context doesn't matter to the 0 followers. We've been told 0bama is the brightest man ever to hold the office. He's the Democrat's Reagan. He's everything they could dream of in a President. They said GWB was the worst president in history. He was the dumbest president ever. And then they excuse anything 0bama does by saying "Bush did it too!" Obviously, according to Democrats, the best and brightest they have to offer struggles to do better than the dumbest, worst Republican in history.
A president will never be impeached again.. Richard nixon got impeached for far less then what obama has done in more then one scandal. It was a black eye to the united states when he was impeached and they won't let it happen to any president again.. republican or democrat.
A president will never be impeached again.. Richard nixon got impeached for far less then what obama has done in more then one scandal. It was a black eye to the united states when he was impeached and they won't let it happen to any president again.. republican or democrat.
In fact, is the ONLY picture anybody should be looking at. That certainly is not what Joe public is being told to look at. Some are easily distracted.
Something else that struck me at work today is that this same court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld Obamacare. If that doesn't tickle your noodle, nothing will.
(then I believe it was because we didn't like President Clinton.) 
.
