Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 26, 2014, 08:18:39 AM
-
Supreme Court Curbs President’s Power to Make Recess Appointments
By ADAM LIPTAK
June 26, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday said President Obama had violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to appoint officials to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief break in the Senate’s work.
But the larger message of the court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and joined by its four more liberal members, was that there is a role for recess appointments so long as they are made during a recess of 10 or more days.
Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the result in the case but issued a caustic concurrence from the bench. “The majority practically bends over backwards to ensure that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the president’s arsenal,” he said.
-
High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments
Email this Story
Jun 26, 11:09 AM (ET)
By MARK SHERMAN
Google sponsored links
Best Dividend Stock 2014 - Not only is it yielding 11%, it is growing the dividend. Free Report
wealthyretirement.com
How to Fix Slow Computer - Easily Repair a Slow Computer. Very Simple Instructions (Recommended)
windowsanswers.net/Slow-Comp
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans in their partisan clash with President Barack Obama.
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.
Neither house of Congress can take more than a three-day break without the consent of the other.
The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees.
But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running.
Still, the outcome was the least significant loss possible for the administration. The justices, by a 5-4 vote, rejected a sweeping lower court ruling against the administration that would have made it virtually impossible for any future president to make recess appointments.
The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said he would have upheld the lower court's reasoning. He said Thursday's decision means "the abolition of the Constitution's limits on the recess-appointment power."
A recess appointment can last no more than two years. Recess appointees who subsequently won Senate confirmation include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, two current NLRB members and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is among recess appointees who left office because they could not win a Senate vote.
The case challenging the appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a soft drink bottling company in Yakima, Washington. The company claimed an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were not properly appointed and that the board did not have enough members to do business without the improperly appointed officials.
Noel Canning prevailed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and two other appeals courts also had ruled against recess appointments.
Obama has made relatively few recess appointments, 32 in his four-plus years in office, according to the Congressional Research Service. President George W. Bush made 171 such appointments over two terms and President Bill Clinton filled 139 posts that way in his eight years in office, the research service said.
But Obama was the first president to try to make recess appointments when Congress explicitly said it was not in recess. The Constitution requires that the Senate and House must get the other's consent for a break lasting longer than three days. At the end of 2011, the Republican-controlled House would not give the Democratic-led Senate permission for a longer break.
The partisan roles were reversed during Bush's presidency, when Senate Democrats sought ways to prevent the president from making recess appointments.
In fact, the very basis on which the justices decided the case — that the Senate can use extremely brief sessions to avoid a formal recess — was a tactic devised by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to frustrate Bush.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/supreme-court-recess-appointments_n_5533174.html
;D
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
;D
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381302/obama-suffers-12th-unanimous-defeat-supreme-court-joel-gehrke
:D
-
;D
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/26/supreme-court-recess-appointments_n_5533174.html
I wonder what name straw and licker post under.
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-barack-obama-recess-appointments-108373.html
:D
-
Obstructionism Is Patriotic
Townhall.com ^ | June 27, 2014 | Michelle Malkin
Posted on 6/27/2014 7:58:06 AM by Kaslin
Three cheers for right-wing obstructionism. Can we have more, please, and louder?
This week's unanimous Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's illegal recess appointments is a double smackdown. First, it's a rebuke against arrogant White House power-grabbers who thought they could act with absolute impunity and interminable immunity. Second, the ruling is a reproach of all the establishment pushovers on Capitol Hill who put comity above constitutional principle.
In a nutshell: The high court determined that Obama lawlessly exceeded his executive authority when he foisted three members onto the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, during what Democrats declared was a phony-baloney Senate "recess." In reality, the Senate was holding pro forma sessions over winter break precisely to prevent such circumvention. The ability to convene pro forma sessions is a power retained in both the House and Senate. It's a time-honored, constitutionally protected tradition.
No matter. Our imperial president and his crafty lawyers declared that the Senate wasn't in business despite the Senate's declaration that it was, and the White House rammed through the appointments of Terence Flynn, Richard Griffin and Sharon Block while the Senate took a brief weekend break in between the pro forma sessions. The steamrolling gave the NLRB a quorum -- and a green light to issue hundreds and hundreds of legally suspect decisions.
But conservatives objected. Plaintiff Noel Canning, the businessman who challenged the legitimacy of NLRB decisions made by the shadily packed panel, objected. And President Rules-For-Thee-But-Not-For-Me got hoisted by his own petard. The high court resoundingly rejected the administration's ploy to usurp "the Constitution's broad delegation of authority to the Senate to determine how and when to conduct its business."
The decision also vindicates conservative pushback against Obama's overreaching recess appointments of radical SEIU lawyer Craig Becker in 2010 and unfettered financial czar Richard Cordray in 2012. As Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, put it: "(T)he real victory goes to the Constitution's separation of powers. ... By striking down these appointments, the Supreme Court delivered a much-needed bench-slap to the Obama administration's contempt for the Constitution."
The Canning decision should embolden "obstructionist" conservatives on Capitol Hill -- led by House Republicans -- who have raised bloody hell over Obama's imperial governance in defiance of establishment GOP go-along, get-alongism. Staunch conservative Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out after the NLRB ruling: "This marks the 12th time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration's calls for greater federal executive power."
Thanks to patriotic obstructionism, this should and will be far from the last rebuke. Continued accommodation of this control-freak president and his cronies is suicide. There are only two responsible replies to a Constitution-trampling, end-run executive unilaterally declaring, "Yes, I can":
1) "No, you can't."
2) "Hell no, you can't."
-
"This marks the 12th time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration's calls for greater federal executive power."
The libtards claimed that their personal savior and lord, the almight obama, has never abused his power nor violated any rules. So much for that.
-
"This marks the 12th time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration's calls for greater federal executive power."
The libtards claimed that their personal savior and lord, the almight obama, has never abused his power nor violated any rules. So much for that.
Funny how the con law scholar keeps losing at the SC
-
"Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much...."
This comment applies to everything that clown does.
-
Funny how the con law scholar keeps losing at the SC
I guess an Ivy League school education is not what it used to be.
-
I guess an Ivy League school education is not what it used to be.
Obama has always hated the USC w a passion. He wants to be a king and a despot lording over everyone else. F him. Honestly - the best thing that could happen at this time is if he just resigns and goes plays golf all day. He is a waste of time and $
-
::)
Labor board scrambles after hundreds of decisions thrown into doubt by court ruling
The Supreme Court ruling on Thursday that invalidated three appointments made by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board has thrown hundreds of the board's decisions into question.
The board that rules on labor disputes is now scrambling to determine the impact of the high court decision. At issue is whether board decisions made when the now-invalid appointees were participating will have to be re-decided under the current NLRB.
ADVERTISEMENT
By one count, more than 430 cases could be in doubt, including a decision to protect workers from being fired for complaining about their companies on social media sites.
Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce put out a brief statement on Thursday acknowledging the possibility these cases will have to be revisited.
"We are analyzing the impact that the Court's decision has on Board cases in which the January 2012 recess appointees participated," he said. "The Agency is committed to resolving any cases affected by today's decision as expeditiously as possible."
He noted that the board, as it's now constituted, has five Senate-confirmed members. But that was not the case between January 2012 and mid-2013, when the board contained members whom the Supreme Court has determined were improperly appointed.
In a blow to Obama, the court unanimously ruled Thursday that the president exceeded his authority when he made the temporary appointments to the board during a brief Senate break.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation claims the ruling means "all decisions, published and unpublished, absent settlement during the interim, must be reconsidered."
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., told Fox News that he hopes every case decided during that period will come back before the NLRB for another hearing.
"I think we need to hear each and every case and understand the merits," Scott said.
Scott acknowledged that even if the cases are heard again, the results could be the same given the partisan makeup. "My fear is that you will see the new board rubber-stamping, perhaps in totality, all of these decisions and that would be bad," he said.
But the Supreme Court decision nevertheless threatens to sideline the NLRB's current work so that it can revisit the past cases.
According to The Wall Street Journal, 436 cases were decided during the 18-month period when two of the three appointees in question were there. The third served only a short stint before stepping down.
Many of them may not be controversial, but the Journal reported that 100 of those decisions were challenged in federal court -- meaning the board could be pressed to at least revisit those cases.
Among the 436 cases was a decision protecting workers from being fired for complaining about their jobs on social media; decisions that struck down employer policies barring workers from discussing private matters involving other employees or discussing their own internal investigations; and a decision telling employers to give unions a chance to bargain before imposing certain disciplinary actions.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, in a written statement, looked for the silver lining in Thursday's ruling, saying it "clears up the legal landscape on a question both Democratic and Republican presidents have faced for decades -- the circumstances under which the United States Constitution allows them to make temporary recess appointments to executive branch positions."
As for the NLRB's past decisions, he said, "We are confident the NLRB will handle the pending cases impacted by [the ruling] efficiently and expeditiously."
So Obama's appointments were for the Labor Board to help build jobs and curve unemployment......how horrible!!! ::)
-
Does not matter - Obama does not get to tell the Senate when it is in session.
-
Does not matter - Obama does not get to tell the Senate when it is in session.
Then they accuse you of not reading the article.
In this case, libtards want to continue to believe that their savior doesn't have limited authority. Sad people.
Libtards would have loved Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.
-
So Obama's appointments were for the Labor Board to help build jobs and curve unemployment......how horrible!!! ::)
So the intentions are more important than rules and the established order? That is some dangerous thinking right there. Basically you are advocating that it is fine for people to break rules as long as they FEEL or PERCEIVE their actions are good.
You are wrong. Even this libtard professor agrees with the supreme court:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/27/turley_scotus_ruling_a_shot_across_the_bow_for_obamas_flagrantly_unconstitutional_actions.html
-
So the intentions are more important than rules and the established order? That is some dangerous thinking right there. Basically you are advocating that it is fine for people to break rules as long as they FEEL or PERCEIVE their actions are good.
You are wrong. Even this libtard professor agrees with the supreme court:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/27/turley_scotus_ruling_a_shot_across_the_bow_for_obamas_flagrantly_unconstitutional_actions.html
The House has stalled on every person selected, every law to help out regular Americans for nothing more than for political reason....simply because it was Obama related.
Good for the President to do what needed to be done to get this country back moving....that's one of the reasons he was reelected
-
The House has stalled on every person selected, every law to help out regular Americans for nothing more than for political reason....simply because it was Obama related.
Good for the President to do what needed to be done to get this country back moving....that's one of the reasons he was reelected
So you want a King?
-
So you want a King?
He would have loved Hitler. He would have been yelling "Heil Hitler" on his way to the gas chamber.
-
So you want a King?
(http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Executive-Orders.jpg)
-
(http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Executive-Orders.jpg)
That damn sotomator kagan gimsburg and breyer
-
(http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Executive-Orders.jpg)
Mmm, it's one thing to give an executive order to help and for the right reasons but Obama is so incompetent (borderline non-functional retardation) he's incapable of making a good decision.
-
(http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Executive-Orders.jpg)
BOOM!
Class dismissed! ;D
-
BOOM!
Class dismissed! ;D
Sotomayor and kagin are rasis
-
I guess an Ivy League school education is not what it used to be.
Not when you got in under the *ahem* special assistance for minorities provisions.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/30/turley_on_hobby_lobby_ruling_huge_blow_for_obama_admin_been_an_awful_ten_days_for_them.html
;D
-
And Obama doesn't blink an eye...BOOM
President Obama vowed Monday to bypass Congress and pursue unilateral changes to the country's immigration system, defying House Republicans who say his executive actions are part of the problem.
The president, speaking in the Rose Garden, said he is forced to go it alone because the House has failed to act on a comprehensive overhaul. He said Speaker John Boehner informed him last week the House will not vote on an immigration bill this year.
ADVERTISEMENT
"America cannot wait forever for them to act," Obama said. He said he's launching a new effort to "fix as much of our immigration system as I can, on my own, without Congress."
The president's announcement is sure to infuriate congressional Republicans. Obama is pushing for new executive actions in defiance of Boehner's vow last week to pursue a lawsuit against the president over alleged executive overreach. Even before Monday's announcement, Boehner and his colleagues alleged that the president has gone too far in making changes without Congress to immigration policy, the Affordable Care Act, environmental regulations and other issues.
This new push would go further still.
In a written statement, Boehner called Obama's announcement "sad and disappointing," and said executive orders "can't and won't fix these problems."
During his remarks in the Rose Garden, Obama cited the current surge of illegal immigrant children crossing the southern border and said the "crisis" should underscore the need to pass a comprehensive bill. But Boehner claimed that it was Obama's past executive orders -- those easing deportations for some illegal immigrants -- that "have led directly to the humanitarian crisis along the southern border."
Boehner said "additional executive action from this president isn't going to stem the tide of illegal crossings, it's only going to make them worse." He also referred to last week's Supreme Court ruling that Obama overstepped in making recess appointments, saying the court "reminded us" that there are "sharp limits" to presidential power.
As for his conversation last week with the president, Boehner said he only told Obama what he's been saying for months: that until the public and elected officials trust him to enforce the law, "it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue."
Obama, though, said he would still prefer to seek changes via Congress, and he'd continue to press the House to act.
But for the time being, the president announced two steps. First, he's directed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Attorney General Eric Holder to move "available resources" from the interior to the border to address security. Further, the president said he's directed a team to "identify additional actions my administration can take on our own within my existing legal authorities to do what Congress refuses to do and fix as much of our immigration system as we can."
According to a White House official, those recommendations are due back by the end of the summer.
Obama's decision effectively declares that a broad based change in immigration policy is dead for the year, and perhaps for the remainder of his administration. Changing immigration laws and providing a path to citizenship for about 11 million immigrants in the country illegally has been one Obama's top priorities as he sought to conclude his presidency with a major second-term victory.
Meanwhile, the president is still grappling with a surge of illegal immigrant children and families along the border. Earlier in the day, Obama sent a letter to congressional leaders asking for more flexibility on that front, seeking increased powers to send unaccompanied children from Central America back from the U.S. border to the countries they're trying to flee illegally.
Obama also asked for increased penalties for persons who smuggle immigrants who are vulnerable, such as children. The request is part of a broader administration response to what the White House has called a "humanitarian crisis" on the border.
Obama is asking Congress for emergency money that would, among other things, help conduct "an aggressive deterrence strategy focused on the removal and repatriation of recent border crossers." Obama's letter to Boehner, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says the administration is confronting the influx with a coordinated response on both sides of the border.
"This includes fulfilling our legal and moral obligation to make sure we appropriately care for unaccompanied children who are apprehended, while taking aggressive steps to surge resources to our Southwest border to deter both adults and children from this dangerous journey, increase capacity for enforcement and removal proceedings, and quickly return unlawful migrants to their home countries," Obama wrote.
The Border Patrol in South Texas has been overwhelmed for several months by an influx of unaccompanied children and parents traveling with young children from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Unlike Mexican immigrants arrested after entering the U.S. illegally, those from Central America cannot be as easily returned to their countries. Obama is seeking authority to act more quickly
The Border Patrol has apprehended more than 52,000 child immigrants traveling on their own since the start of the 2014 budget year in October.
Immigrant advocacy groups, already frustrated by Obama's lack of executive action to ease record levels of deportations, immediately pounced on the administration's decision.
Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said the influx of children across the border "really requires a humanitarian response, not an increase in deportations."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
Amazing how blacks like Vince Benney et al defend their messiah taking actions that only hurt fellow blacks like this amnesty shit.
I can tell wops like Pelosi Cuomo etc that they are piece of shit and worthless - why cant you do the same w o-twink?
-
Obstructionism Is Patriotic
Townhall.com ^ | June 27, 2014 | Michelle Malkin
Posted on 6/27/2014 7:58:06 AM by Kaslin
Three cheers for right-wing obstructionism. Can we have more, please, and louder?
This week's unanimous Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's illegal recess appointments is a double smackdown. First, it's a rebuke against arrogant White House power-grabbers who thought they could act with absolute impunity and interminable immunity. Second, the ruling is a reproach of all the establishment pushovers on Capitol Hill who put comity above constitutional principle.
In a nutshell: The high court determined that Obama lawlessly exceeded his executive authority when he foisted three members onto the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, during what Democrats declared was a phony-baloney Senate "recess." In reality, the Senate was holding pro forma sessions over winter break precisely to prevent such circumvention. The ability to convene pro forma sessions is a power retained in both the House and Senate. It's a time-honored, constitutionally protected tradition.
No matter. Our imperial president and his crafty lawyers declared that the Senate wasn't in business despite the Senate's declaration that it was, and the White House rammed through the appointments of Terence Flynn, Richard Griffin and Sharon Block while the Senate took a brief weekend break in between the pro forma sessions. The steamrolling gave the NLRB a quorum -- and a green light to issue hundreds and hundreds of legally suspect decisions.
But conservatives objected. Plaintiff Noel Canning, the businessman who challenged the legitimacy of NLRB decisions made by the shadily packed panel, objected. And President Rules-For-Thee-But-Not-For-Me got hoisted by his own petard. The high court resoundingly rejected the administration's ploy to usurp "the Constitution's broad delegation of authority to the Senate to determine how and when to conduct its business."
The decision also vindicates conservative pushback against Obama's overreaching recess appointments of radical SEIU lawyer Craig Becker in 2010 and unfettered financial czar Richard Cordray in 2012. As Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, put it: "(T)he real victory goes to the Constitution's separation of powers. ... By striking down these appointments, the Supreme Court delivered a much-needed bench-slap to the Obama administration's contempt for the Constitution."
The Canning decision should embolden "obstructionist" conservatives on Capitol Hill -- led by House Republicans -- who have raised bloody hell over Obama's imperial governance in defiance of establishment GOP go-along, get-alongism. Staunch conservative Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out after the NLRB ruling: "This marks the 12th time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration's calls for greater federal executive power."
Thanks to patriotic obstructionism, this should and will be far from the last rebuke. Continued accommodation of this control-freak president and his cronies is suicide. There are only two responsible replies to a Constitution-trampling, end-run executive unilaterally declaring, "Yes, I can":
1) "No, you can't."
2) "Hell no, you can't."