SCOTUS: Obama overstepped bounds with recess appointments

[Greybeard]

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/bre ... f6878.html

[ShotgunBlast]

The article fails to mention to anyone reading the article who might be thinking those obstructionist Republicans won this battle, that Democrats did the same thing in 2007 to block Bush appointees. Bush however knew that he couldn't just force these appointees through.

[FiremanBob]

But the Republicans, and the Constitution, did win this battle. Bush stayed within the Constitution. Zero and his minions wanted to tear it up on this point. And SCOTUS bench-slapped the would-be dictator.

The implications of the decision are more important than merely removing the appointees. Every decision that they made is invalid - which eliminates a bunch of fascist regulations enacted by them.

[Swampman]

The implications of the decision are more important than merely removing the appointees. Every decision that they made is invalid - which eliminates a bunch of fascist regulations enacted by them.

You'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath until the fascist regulations the illegal appointees pushed through are rescinded. Ever the pessimist, I am!

[ShotgunBlast]

But the Republicans, and the Constitution, did win this battle. Bush stayed within the Constitution. Zero and his minions wanted to tear it up on this point. And SCOTUS bench-slapped the would-be dictator.

The implications of the decision are more important than merely removing the appointees. Every decision that they made is invalid - which eliminates a bunch of fascist regulations enacted by them.

I understand that, but with the article stated the way it is many people will just come away with the reinforced notion that Republicans are obstructionists and the SCOTUS went along with them, not knowing that the Democrats did the very same thing not too long ago.

A different article however can provide your liberal friends with a more complete picture of the topic.

This ruling represents a resounding and well-deserved defeat for the Obama administration, which failed to garner even a single vote for its expansive theory of executive power. Indeed, in terms of recess appointments, President Obama has revealed a tendency towards unilateral action that exceeds even that of his predecessor George W. Bush, who was no slouch in the executive power department. Yet unlike Obama, Bush adhered to the independence of Congress and stopped making purported recess appointments in 2007 when Senate Democrats first introduced the tactic of holding pro forma sessions to thwart his nominees. As The New York Times reported at the time, “Senate Democrats repeated the move during breaks for the rest of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and Mr. Bush did not try to make any further recess appointments.”

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/26/supre ... mas-uncons

Where they may walk away with the impression "oh, both parties do pro forma sessions to be a thorn to the other party" whereas before they may just think Republicans are obstructionists because their memory and/or partisanship doesn't go back to 2007.

[Kreutz]

Bet'cha those appointees still have their jobs for the foreseeable future.

[Riposite]

I think the fact that it is a 9-0 Unanimous vote will help silence critics. It's pretty obvious that if Sotomeyer and Ginsberg are against it-you had to be pretty far out there in the first place.

As for them staying employed-doesn't this ruling immediately invalidate their positions?

[MarcSpaz]

The action of the appointment is illegal, but those folks don't automatically lose their jobs, nor do their policies become null. It is up to Congress to remove the appointees and place new people in those positions if so desired. It is also up to Congress or the new appointees to repeal/revoke any policies put in place by those previous staffers.

[Riposite]

well at the very least you should be able to sue to countervene their policies correct?

[MarcSpaz]

I would believe you as a citizen could sue in protest of any government laws or regulatory rules, but it can't be arbitrary. You have to be directly impacted by any policies you feel are unconstitutional or illegal.

Of course, this is regardless of any legality of appointment. You can do this even if everything was implemented 100% by the book.

[smltooner]

I think the fact that it is a 9-0 Unanimous vote will help silence critics. It's pretty obvious that if Sotomeyer and Ginsberg are against it-you had to be pretty far out there in the first place.

I am glad to see that this court finally agreed Obama had gone too far.
I wonder how many more 9-0 decisions we will see in the near future.

[ShotgunBlast]

I think the fact that it is a 9-0 Unanimous vote will help silence critics. It's pretty obvious that if Sotomeyer and Ginsberg are against it-you had to be pretty far out there in the first place.

I am glad to see that this court finally agreed Obama had gone too far.
I wonder how many more 9-0 decisions we will see in the near future.

After a little work by the NSA, probably a lot, but not in the direction you're thinking.

[0ne5hot]

[smltooner]

I think the fact that it is a 9-0 Unanimous vote will help silence critics. It's pretty obvious that if Sotomeyer and Ginsberg are against it-you had to be pretty far out there in the first place.

I am glad to see that this court finally agreed Obama had gone too far.
I wonder how many more 9-0 decisions we will see in the near future.

After a little work by the NSA, probably a lot, but not in the direction you're thinking.

I hadn't thought about that, but I hope you are wrong.