News: Obama recess appointments ruled unconstitutional!

  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

I'd be totally okay with recess appointments being declared unconstitutional if the abuse of the filibuster was dealt with. Sadly, because Democrats remain ginormous "wimps", that's unlikely to happen.nocoolnamejim

Mhm.

#52 Posted by lamprey263 (22607 posts) -
it's not that there's anything wrong with recess appointments, not legally, he did it while a "pro forma" session of Congress is underway, it's basically like being open for business and but not doing business because nobody is around, so under that circumstance he can't do recess appointments because technically they're not on recess but they're also not there
#53 Posted by comp_atkins (31181 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]while i agree with the ruling.. it'd be nice if congress got their heads out of their a--es and at least had the hearing to get people confirmed... there should be another check on congress.. something like if congress doesn't act to rule on the confirmation of appointments in X number of days/weeks, the president can appoint whomever they see fit... keep the ball rolling. whipassmt

Actually I think Obama used the recess appointments only 10 hours after notifying the senate of the nominations of three people, so it makes sense they never voted on those guys. The other recess appointment, I think Obama had given the Senate more time on him.

iirc the whole reason he had to resort to the recess appt. crap in the first place is because congress would not go ahead w/ the normal confirmation processes... which is where my suggestion comes in.
#54 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
Obama is probably relieved that the conservatives on the supreme court favor executive power over legislative power.
#55 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

Take that Obama.

BTW the recess appointments are already expired anyway I think, but now that they've been ruled unconstitutional any policies implemented by those people may not be able to be enforced anymore.

whipassmt
I wonder if the impact of the recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board that ruled that Boeing couldn't completely move production of the Dreamliner (787) to South Carolina (right to work state) due to the NLRB ruling against them will let Boeing move said production line after all? It was the pro-union board members that stopped said move. With their appointments tossed out, there is nothing stopping Boeing from moving the line really.
#56 Posted by LongZhiZi (2453 posts) -
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Take that Obama.

BTW the recess appointments are already expired anyway I think, but now that they've been ruled unconstitutional any policies implemented by those people may not be able to be enforced anymore.

WhiteKnight77
I wonder if the impact of the recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board that ruled that Boeing couldn't completely move production of the Dreamliner (787) to South Carolina (right to work state) due to the NLRB ruling against them will let Boeing move said production line after all? It was the pro-union board members that stopped said move. With their appointments tossed out, there is nothing stopping Boeing from moving the line really.

Assuming this is upheld (either SC declines to hear the case or they hear it and uphold the ruling), then ANY ruling made by the NLRB since that appointment is null and void. There was no quorum to make decisions at that point. The same applies to the CFPB.
#57 Posted by resevl4rlz (3248 posts) -

the only reason it was ruled unconstitutional was because obama is black Novotine

someone didn't learn or pass the Constitution test

#58 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
Obama is a hypocrite and he has no respect for the law. It is good to see people taking a stand against him.
#59 Posted by Blue-Sky (10315 posts) -

A president shouldn't have to resort to something like this.

When you have party hell bent on deny every single apointment/nomination you make what more can you do? In the past, the house/senate approval of cabinet and federal appointments were typically a formality. But just like the filibuster, republicans are abusing every loop hole in the system forcing Obama to use loopholes to counterattack.

#60 Posted by Lotus-Edge (50439 posts) -

A president shouldn't have to resort to something like this.

When you have party hell bent on deny every single apointment/nomination you make what more can you do? In the past, the house/senate approval of cabinet and federal appointments were typically a formality. But just like the filibuster, republicans are abusing every loop hole in the system forcing Obama to use loopholes to counterattack.

Blue-Sky
Fun to watch, eh.
Obama is a hypocrite and he has no respect for the law. It is good to see people taking a stand against him.Laihendi
Like this kid.^
#63 Posted by whipassmt (13924 posts) -

it's not that there's anything wrong with recess appointments, not legally, he did it while a "pro forma" session of Congress is underway, it's basically like being open for business and but not doing business because nobody is around, so under that circumstance he can't do recess appointments because technically they're not on recess but they're also not therelamprey263
Ah "pro forma" session that was the term I was looking for when I was last on this topic. Yeah, the House held a pro forma session in order to prevent there from being a Congressional recess so that Obama couldn't make a recess appointment. The whole pro forma session thing though was originally a tactic first developed by Senate Democrats in 2007 to block President Bush from making recess appointments.

#64 Posted by whipassmt (13924 posts) -

To supplement the TCs post: Obama's appointments were ruled unconstitutional unanimously by a panel of an Appeals court (I think it was three judges).

Obama, through the Dept. of Justice will likely appeal the ruling, there are two avenues through which he may do so: 1. He can appeal directly to the Supreme Court 2. He can ask for "en banc review" where all the judges of the appeals court (instead of just the panel) would hear the case. The fact that the panel's ruling was unanimous could bode poorly for Obama. I think at the end of the day though, the Courts will rule that Congress decides when Congress is in session and as such if Congress says it is in recess, it is in recess, thus the appointments were illegitimate.

#65 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149958 posts) -
this is insulting. obama should b able 2 do anything Novotine
lol
#66 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17379 posts) -

To supplement the TCs post: Obama's appointments were ruled unconstitutional unanimously by a panel of an Appeals court (I think it was three judges).

Obama, through the Dept. of Justice will likely appeal the ruling, there are two avenues through which he may do so: 1. He can appeal directly to the Supreme Court 2. He can ask for "en banc review" where all the judges of the appeals court (instead of just the panel) would hear the case. The fact that the panel's ruling was unanimous could bode poorly for Obama. I think at the end of the day though, the Courts will rule that Congress decides when Congress is in session and as such if Congress says it is in recess, it is in recess, thus the appointments were illegitimate.

whipassmt
I doubt this ruling stays in tact in full. The court's ruling was extremely broad, and doesn't just effect intrasession recess appointments but intersession appointments as well. There is even some debate over whether or not this issue is in the jurisdiction of the courts all together.
#67 Posted by whipassmt (13924 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

To supplement the TCs post: Obama's appointments were ruled unconstitutional unanimously by a panel of an Appeals court (I think it was three judges).

Obama, through the Dept. of Justice will likely appeal the ruling, there are two avenues through which he may do so: 1. He can appeal directly to the Supreme Court 2. He can ask for "en banc review" where all the judges of the appeals court (instead of just the panel) would hear the case. The fact that the panel's ruling was unanimous could bode poorly for Obama. I think at the end of the day though, the Courts will rule that Congress decides when Congress is in session and as such if Congress says it is in recess, it is in recess, thus the appointments were illegitimate.

-Sun_Tzu-

I doubt this ruling stays in tact in full. The court's ruling was extremely broad, and doesn't just effect intrasession recess appointments but intersession appointments as well. There is even some debate over whether or not this issue is in the jurisdiction of the courts all together.

Interesting. If not in the jurisdiction of the courts, who's jurisdiction is it in, Congress's?

#68 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17379 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]

To supplement the TCs post: Obama's appointments were ruled unconstitutional unanimously by a panel of an Appeals court (I think it was three judges).

Obama, through the Dept. of Justice will likely appeal the ruling, there are two avenues through which he may do so: 1. He can appeal directly to the Supreme Court 2. He can ask for "en banc review" where all the judges of the appeals court (instead of just the panel) would hear the case. The fact that the panel's ruling was unanimous could bode poorly for Obama. I think at the end of the day though, the Courts will rule that Congress decides when Congress is in session and as such if Congress says it is in recess, it is in recess, thus the appointments were illegitimate.

whipassmt

I doubt this ruling stays in tact in full. The court's ruling was extremely broad, and doesn't just effect intrasession recess appointments but intersession appointments as well. There is even some debate over whether or not this issue is in the jurisdiction of the courts all together.

Interesting. If not in the jurisdiction of the courts, who's jurisdiction is it in, Congress's?

Not necessarily congress alone but it is probably something that congress and the white house should work out among themselves without the courts interfering. There's a case to be made that this is a political issue moreso than a strictly legal one.
#70 Posted by whipassmt (13924 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I doubt this ruling stays in tact in full. The court's ruling was extremely broad, and doesn't just effect intrasession recess appointments but intersession appointments as well. There is even some debate over whether or not this issue is in the jurisdiction of the courts all together. -Sun_Tzu-

Interesting. If not in the jurisdiction of the courts, who's jurisdiction is it in, Congress's?

Not necessarily congress alone but it is probably something that congress and the white house should work out among themselves without the courts interfering. There's a case to be made that this is a political issue moreso than a strictly legal one.

Yeah, it would be best for them to resolve it among themselves. Perhaps there could be a law regulating senate confirmations of officials and recess appointments, for example instituting the following requirements: 1. The president may not appoint someone by recess appointment until 60 days after he has formally nominated the person to the Senate 2. Committee hearings in regard to a presidential nomination must begin within 30 days of the person being appointed.