Federal Appeals Court Bitch Slaps Imperial President BO

[Nanker]

Recess appointments were unconstitutional.

[/dev/null]

Not really a B word slap against Obama. Recess appointments have been a tradition for generations. It will be inetersting however to see if the Obama Administration adheres to the Court's ruling

[B-Man]

Not really a B word slap against Obama. Recess appointments have been a tradition for generations. It will be inetersting however to see if the Obama Administration adheres to the Court's ruling

 

Except Congress was NOT in recess. The "O" knew it, but felt that he could do it anyway. Thats why he was unanimously "slapped down"

 

 

 

http://hotair.com/ar...s-appointments/

 

It took more than a year, but a federal appeals court has finally caught up with Barack Obama and his unilateral declaration of a Congressional recess. In an embarrassing rebuke, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Obama violated the Constitution by making appointments while the Senate considered itself in session:

 

 

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

 

And as the AP also points out, the decision was unanimous … and embarrassing:

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

 

The ruling means that a full year of work from the NLRB will go down the tubes, if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling. The three appointments allowed the panel to form the quorum necessary to pass decisions. Now every ruling made by the NLRB will be delegitimized as soon as those harmed by the rulings take this into court. What a mess — and an unnecessary mess at that:

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

 

It wasn’t just the three appointments to the NLRB, either. Obama appointed Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose appointment ran out when the 112th Session of Congress expired earlier this month. The appointment is being challenged in a separate case but in the same circuit, which means we can expect a similar ruling. Obama re-nominated Cordray to the post yesterday:

Four days into his second term, President Obama renewed a fight from his first term when he renominated

Richard Cordray

for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

At a news conference this afternoon, Obama announced he was throwing Cordray, the man currently serving in the post thanks to a recess appointment, into the ring as his pick to direct the government-run financial watchdog.

“He can’t stay on the job unless the Senate finally gives him the confirmation he deserves,” Obama said.

 

The court ruling gives Senate Republicans more than enough political cover to proclaim Cordray’s nomination entirely inappropriate, and start working to block it. And now that the Senate has resolved the filibuster-reform fight with it largely intact, expect them to use it on Cordray as best as they can.

 

 

Update: It’s also worth pointing out what a monumental screw-up this was from a historical perspective. No one has provoked the legislature (and others) to fight over recess appointments in the courts, which meant that the executive branch had considerable gray area in which to operate, at least politically. No more, if this precedent stands; future Presidents (and the present one) will now be at the Senate’s mercy.

Edited January 25, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Wow. I can't believe the DC Court of Appeals hates black people. These racist bastards are gonna pay.

[dayman]

It's a fair enough decision although it is as Carney suggests quite a surprising one considering intra session recess appointments have happened hundreds of times in the last 100 years and more of our nations history has passed where they happen than when they do not. The court basically said "well, we know they've been going on since the mid-1800s and we know a ton of them have gone on in the 20th century, but they didn't happen for the first 70 or so years so we think that settles the question." Not really a huge deal in the end but it is hilarious the way B-Man thinks this is so "embarrassing" to the administration that the use of executive power in a way that has been recognized for over 150 years and common place for almost a century was suddenly declared unconstitutional.

Edited January 25, 2013 by SameOldBills

[B-Man]

It's a fair enough decision although it is as Carney suggests quite a surprising one considering intra session recess appointments have happened hundreds of times in the last 100 years and more of our nations history has passed where they happen than when they do not. The court basically said "well, we know they've been going on since the mid-1800s and we know a ton of them have gone on in the 20th century, but they didn't happen for the first 70 or so years so we think that settles the question." Not really a huge deal in the end but it is hilarious the way B-Man thinks this is so "embarrassing" to the administration that the use of executive power in a way that has been recognized for over 150 years and common place for almost a century was suddenly declared unconstitutional.

 

You really have to work on your reading comprehension. (and stay away from Press secretary spin.................lol)

 

It has little to nothing to do with me being outraged, that's just you trying to divert.

 

It is not the same as past appointments, thats why it was foolish for this administration to push this. Just another example of their continuing poor executive skills.

 

If the ruling stands, every decision made by the NRLB over the past year will be voided.

 

Feel free to take the party line and claim "its no big deal".

 

Even the Obama friendly media isn't buying that.

 

 

.

[Cougarz for Crayonz]

I'm glad someone has declared war on B.O. This world would be a better place without smelly hippies.

[dayman]

It is not the same as past appointments, thats why it was foolish for this administration to push this.

.

 

A ton of intrasession recess apportionments have happened. Now the court says they shouldn't have. Dating back decades (and even over a century) ..they're all bad now b/c of an appeals court in 1 district.

Edited January 25, 2013 by SameOldBills

[B-Man]

Try reading..................

 

 

In Court’s Slap Down of Obama Overreach, ‘The’ Makes All the Difference

 

 

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today invalidated one of President Obama’s most despotic overreaches to date: his attempt to use the Constitution’s recess appointment power to make appointments despite the absence of a recess. Judge David Sentelle’s opinion for the three-judge panel makes a powerful case for an originalist interpretation of the relevant clause (Art. II, Section 2, Clause 2).

 

The case involves our organized labor-loving president’s effort in January 2012 to stack the National Labor Relations Board with three members he obviously did not believe the Senate would confirm — another iteration of the Constitution-flouting ideology that led Obama to appoint numerous “czars” in an end-run of the Senate confirmation process. (At the same time he “recess-appointed” the three NLRB members, Obama also purported to appoint a left-wing chief of the constitutionally dubious Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a Dodd-Frank monstrosity to which Republicans object. The CFPB “recess appointment” was not involved in the case decided today, but the court’s rationale surely spells doom for it as well.)

 

The problem for Obama was that the Senate was not in recess. To be sure, it was not doing much business at the time and was, in the main, only technically in session. Nonetheless, its official session had not come to an end.

 

{snip}

 

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Obama administration’s position, as posited by the NLRB, was its coyness in refusing to be pinned down on how short a break in the senate’s session needed to be before it could be considered a “recess” for constitutional purposes. To take this to its logical extreme, Obama would be able to make “recess appointments” over the lawmakers’ lunch-break in the middle of a busy legislative day. Imagine if someone tried to tell you the Super Bowl was over just because CBS cut to a beer commercial halfway through the first quarter.

 

The court brushed such nickle-and-diming aside by carefully reading the Constitution, which refers not to “a recess” but to “the recess.” That is, what the Framers were talking about was not any old break in the action but the formal interlude when the Senate is between sessions – session being a term the Constitution uses with recess in a way that makes them mutually exclusive. The court also noted that the Constitution makes a distinction between “the recess” and an adjournment, a term that plainly relates to intra-session breaks in the proceedings. The Obama administration was obviously trying to turn the intentionally sparing power to make recess appointments into a free-wheeling power to make adjournment appointments.

 

Expect lots of people harmed by NLRB and CFPB determinations and pronouncements to head to court. Also expect the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. While the D.C. Circuit’s constitutional analysis is compelling, there is an interesting question as to whether it had jurisdiction to reach the constitutional issues given that the petitioner failed to raise them before the NLRB. The panel found that it did, and its reasoning is persuasive, but the judges concede that there is no precedent directly on point. I’d bet on the Supreme Court affirming today’s ruling, but I think we’ll also be hearing a lot of banter from the administration spin machine about judicial overreach — the spin machine doubling as a chutzpah machine.

 

 

.

[dayman]

Try reading..................

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

I have read, try reading my posts as this post does nothing to respond to them in any way

[Oxrock]

 

 

I have read, try reading my posts as this post does nothing to respond to them in any way

so it's a comprehension problem then.

[B-Man]

Maybe a few direct quotes will be easier for you............................

 

The judges said the definition of “the Recess” in the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause is limited to the period between one Congress and the next, and that Congress had begun a new session at the time the president made the appointments.

 

“Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception,” U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle wrote.

 

 

 

According to the Court’s decision, Obama’s Office of Legal Counsel essentially argued that the President, not the Senate, has the authority to declare that the Senate is in recess.

This argument was strongly rebuked by the Court:

 

This will not do. Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers. The checks and balances that the Constitution places on each branch of government serve as “self-executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 122 (1976). An interpretation of “the Recess” that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law. The intersession interpretation of “the Recess” is the only one faithful to the Constitution’s text, structure, and history

 

 

Seems like a "slap" to anyone who reads it.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 26, 2013 by B-Man

[Cinga]

A unanimous decision from the first, I actually doubt the Supremes will even hear, and simply let the decision stand....

[dayman]

lol Bman you really are stupid. I don't think you understand the posts I've made.

[3rdnlng]

lol Bman you really are stupid. I don't think you understand the posts I've made.

 

Have you clearly made the differentiation between actual recess appointments and appointments made as recess appointments when the Senate wasn't actually in recess?

[dayman]

Have you clearly made the differentiation between actual recess appointments and appointments made as recess appointments when the Senate wasn't actually in recess?

 

As I've said, intrasession recess appointments have happened a bunch. Thus, it is surprising to most people that the opinion says they cannot happen ever, and even intersession recess appointments can only be made when the vacancy arises during that recess. In other words, this is a very surprising ruling. Bman somehow does not understand that this does in fact prevent what many presidents have been doing for a long time, and just pastes articles highlighting what the decision is...which is not something anybody is confused about and thus makes it seem as though he's retarded.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

As I've said, intrasession recess appointments have happened a bunch. Thus, it is surprising to most people that the opinion says they cannot happen ever, and even intersession recess appointments can only be made when the vacancy arises during that recess. In other words, this is a very surprising ruling. Bman somehow does not understand that this does in fact prevent what many presidents have been doing for a long time, and just pastes articles highlighting what the decision is...which is not something anybody is confused about and thus makes it seem as though he's retarded.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

 

 

"On January 6, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, claiming that "[t]he convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments." [41][42] However, this was widely disputed,[43][44] with Professor Richard Epstein writing "... it is for the Senate and not for the President to determine whether the Senate is in session. The usual view in all cases is that the internal rules of each institution govern its operations, and for the President to say that the Senate is not in session when the Senate says that it is, introduces a set of constitutional confrontations that we would be far better off doing without."

 

 

[dayman]

http://en.wikipedia....ess_appointment

 

 

"On January 6, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, claiming that "[t]he convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments." [41][42] However, this was widely disputed,[43][44] with Professor Richard Epstein writing "... it is for the Senate and not for the President to determine whether the Senate is in session. The usual view in all cases is that the internal rules of each institution govern its operations, and for the President to say that the Senate is not in session when the Senate says that it is, introduces a set of constitutional confrontations that we would be far better off doing without."

 

Taking after Bman and just posting stuff that everybody who has read a basic article about this story knows? hehe

 

The greater point of the confirmation process is that it is insane at this point. There is absolutely no reason the senate should have to confirm over 500 positions....and regardless of the party in the WH they should be more deferential and just look a qualification, not put stupid holds on nominees for unrelated reasons, and on and on...I mean at any given point there are countless positions in the government some of which are actually important that have no acting official...if that doesn't show how the entire process is broken (broken by both parties obviously) then idk what does....

[TakeYouToTasker]

Taking after Bman and just posting stuff that everybody who has read a basic article about this story knows? hehe

 

The greater point of the confirmation process is that it is insane at this point. There is absolutely no reason the senate should have to confirm over 500 positions....and regardless of the party in the WH they should be more deferential and just look a qualification, not put stupid holds on nominees for unrelated reasons, and on and on...I mean at any given point there are countless positions in the government some of which are actually important that have no acting official...if that doesn't show how the entire process is broken (broken by both parties obviously) then idk what does....

I agree. There is no good reason that the Senate should have to confirm over 500 positions, because government oversight and purview should extend so far that there are over 500 positions to confirm. However, if you insist that the government should justly have such a role, then those 500 positions must adhere to our system of checks and balances, and those 500 duly require Senate confirmation in order to keep any semblance of a democratic or republican system.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

lol Bman you really are stupid. I don't think you understand the posts I've made.

 

i would say that Bman is one of the smarter and more rational of the right leaning posters here. He, like me and Oxrock are also some of the refugees from the "other board".

 

Listen, I think you're both shooting past each other here. You're not trying to argue the same thing. Therefore , neither argument makes sense to the other.

 

But anyways, here's the deal. Whether it's been done for 100 years before or not. Obama did overstep his boundary and was called out. This ruling holds all future presidents to the same standard and therefore is fair. If he wants to make future recess appointments he needs to wait until the senate is actually in recess.

 

Can we all now stop with the "B word slaps" threads? Here's half the problem. We have two different parties with two vastly different ideologies trying to take the nation in to vastly different directions. Just because "your man" chewed out the member of another party, or a ruling went the way your party wanted it to go doesn't mean you made the other party your B word. It's the system working the way it should.