Obama's labor relations board appointment ruled unconstitutional

[slackjawed]

three threads on this already, hope they get merged but this is the oldest one.

I have to wonder if this is more grandstanding. This is how it looks to me;
Both houses of congress refuse to work together to accomplish anything. Our so-called leaders are no longer interested in actually accomplishing anything other than partisan bickering over the smallest issues. Is this a "bomb" that was intentionally planted by the republicans in congress?
If they would not approve any of the appointments, could the president have been forced into making these appointments in order to fill the posts he needed filled? Could the congressional republicans have intended that, thereby snapping the jaws shut on trap which would result in an unfavorable supreme court ruling?

I am not supporting Obama here. I am not happy with any of our so-called leaders right now. So dismiss the idea right now that I am defending Obama, or anyone else for that matter.

Grandstanding?

grandstanding as in doing petty little bs things to gain political points without any actual accomplishments is what i meant.

both sides do it, could this be one of those instances? I don't know......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bound for the Supremes.

Rather than wasting our tax dollars on trivial shit why doesn't he just follow the proper channels?

Why does the Senate require 60 votes to confirm a post?

It doesn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bound for the Supremes.

Rather than wasting our tax dollars on trivial shit why doesn't he just follow the proper channels?

Because if he did that..nothing would get done.

The new Consumer Protection Department has no Head and neither does the ATF. The Senate has made extreme parlimentary procedures BAU.

The Senate was not in session..they had a couple of guys camping out.

I suggest you read the actual decision, which, ultimately, comes down to the fact that recess is specifically defined in the Constitution. It also, quite specifically, says that only vacancies that occur during said recess are eligible for recess appointments.

 

[Stephanie]

USSC will not touch this. No reason to. The appointments were invalid. Everyone knew it. Typical over-reach by the amateur narcissist in chief.

Why will Obama not nominate people he knows can get through Congress? Why does he insist on getting radicals with thin resumes? Working across the aisle is a forgotten skill in this administration, although Biden still knows how to do it.

Because it doesn't matter who he nominates for a position. He could nominate a right wing nut job like Scalia and the Republicans would still block it. That's what Republicans do. This administration has tried over and over to work across party lines only to be rebuffed. They are supposed to advise and consent, not deny, block, obfuscate, and filibuster every appointment.

awww, the poor Obama that constitutional scholar...I mean tyrant

 

[Dragonlady]

Bound for the Supremes.

It'll come back the same way, since those appointments were unconstitutional

Unlikely since both the Republicans and the Democrats have been filling positions this same way for over 100 years.

Republicans are just pissed that the Labour Board has issued a number of pro=union decisions and wants to put a stop to it.

 

[Stephanie]

Bound for the Supremes.

It'll come back the same way, since those appointments were unconstitutional

Unlikely since both the Republicans and the Democrats have been filling positions this same way for over 100 years.

Republicans are just pissed that the Labour Board has issued a number of pro=union decisions and wants to put a stop to it.

so unions should get preferential treatment over the rest of the workers in this country?
and we thought Obama and Democrats were Representative to ALL THE PEOPLE in this country

 

[Koios]

Bound for the Supremes.

Also not the appointments themselves, but how they were appointed (closed session)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you looked at all the vacancies of fed. Judges recently? I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but the volume of blocking appointees, not because you take issue with the person, but simply in order to annoy the President is turning into a serious issue.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues here, but thanks for pointing out that you are a hack. Or did you forget that some of those appointments have been pending since Clinton was president?

It was asked why Obama wouldn't simply follow the proper channels, I was pointing out that there is a breakdown in the system and the proper channels no longer work properly. I also pointed out that while the problem is by no means new, it has reached new levels of ridiculous, but thanks for your wildly overdramatic response.

Except for the fact that he never gave them a chance to vote on the appointments because he didn't make the nominations until a month before the "recess" you have a pretty good point. In fact, they didn't get all the paperwork on a couple of the nominees until the week before the Christmas break. Ypou can't blame the Republicans if the president doesn't make any nominations for two years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

three threads on this already, hope they get merged but this is the oldest one.

I have to wonder if this is more grandstanding. This is how it looks to me;
Both houses of congress refuse to work together to accomplish anything. Our so-called leaders are no longer interested in actually accomplishing anything other than partisan bickering over the smallest issues. Is this a "bomb" that was intentionally planted by the republicans in congress?
If they would not approve any of the appointments, could the president have been forced into making these appointments in order to fill the posts he needed filled? Could the congressional republicans have intended that, thereby snapping the jaws shut on trap which would result in an unfavorable supreme court ruling?

I am not supporting Obama here. I am not happy with any of our so-called leaders right now. So dismiss the idea right now that I am defending Obama, or anyone else for that matter.

Grandstanding?

grandstanding as in doing petty little bs things to gain political points without any actual accomplishments is what i meant.

both sides do it, could this be one of those instances? I don't know......

Obama effectively settled an issue that no one had ever challenged, that recess appointments can only be made if the vacancy occurs while the Senate is in recess. I am sure all future presidents, whatever their political affiliation, will be forever grateful to Obama for limiting their ability to grandstand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bound for the Supremes.

It'll come back the same way, since those appointments were unconstitutional

Unlikely since both the Republicans and the Democrats have been filling positions this same way for over 100 years.

Republicans are just pissed that the Labour Board has issued a number of pro=union decisions and wants to put a stop to it.

They were pissed because he made the appointments even though the Senate was not in recess. That never happened before, despite your lack of historical understanding.

 

[Jarhead]

Bound for the Supremes.

It'll come back the same way, since those appointments were unconstitutional

Unlikely since both the Republicans and the Democrats have been filling positions this same way for over 100 years.

Republicans are just pissed that the Labour Board has issued a number of pro=union decisions and wants to put a stop to it.

I believe you are mis-informed.

Making "solo" appointments while the senate is NOT in recess has never been done before...at least that is what I believe.

 

[BlindBoo]

Rather than wasting our tax dollars on trivial shit why doesn't he just follow the proper channels?

Why does the Senate require 60 votes to confirm a post?

It doesn't.

It shouldn't but in many cases has.

 

[OKTexas]

Have you looked at all the vacancies of fed. Judges recently? I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but the volume of blocking appointees, not because you take issue with the person, but simply in order to annoy the President is turning into a serious issue.

That's what take no prisoners politics will get you, and dear leader Maobama has turned it into an art. What goes around comes around.

 

[francoHFW]

The hypocrisy of the GOP is ridiculous- as if the Senate is in session when only 2 people are there gaveling in and out of session every day for two weeks. The Supremes may be in the real world.

I admit the Dems thought of this, but the Pubs have gone overboard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why does the Senate require 60 votes to confirm a post?

It doesn't.

It shouldn't but in many cases has.

It used to take 66. The Republicans changed that because the Democrats refused to approve any of Bush's judicial appointments.

By the way, most appointments are blocked by anonymous holds, not by filibuster. It seems that quite a few Democrats, and Republicans, block appointments for personal reasons, or to get favors from the president on pet projects. If you really want to reform the Senate you should make noise about the holds instead of blaming it on filibusters.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Bound for the Supremes.

Rather than wasting our tax dollars on trivial shit why doesn't he just follow the proper channels?

Clarifying constitutional separation of powers is trivial shit? I guess the challenge to Obamacare was trivial too....

 

[OKTexas]

The hypocrisy of the GOP is ridiculous- as if the Senate is in session when only 2 people are there gaveling in and out of session every day for two weeks. The Supremes may be in the real world.

I admit the Dems thought of this, but the Pubs have gone overboard.

The commiecrats did exactly the same thing, did you call them ridiculous also?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The hypocrisy of the GOP is ridiculous- as if the Senate is in session when only 2 people are there gaveling in and out of session every day for two weeks. The Supremes may be in the real world.

I admit the Dems thought of this, but the Pubs have gone overboard.

Strangely enough, Obama actually signed a bill that passed during the period you just said the Senate was in recess. Since he thinks that is a valid law, and is willing to argue it in court, that makes him a hypocrite, not the people who are pointing out the Senate was in session.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm waiting for the decision to be released. I want to see the court's thinking on this one.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - Obama tried to pull a fast one...

Obama recess appointments found unconstitutional
25 January 2013 - A US court has found three National Labor Relations Board appointments made by President Barack Obama during a 2012 Senate recess were unconstitutional.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the decision was "novel and unprecedented". The ruling said that the Senate was not technically in recess when the appointments to the NLRB were made. Mr Obama also appointed the head of a new agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, at the same time. But the White House argued Richard Cordray's nomination to the CFPB would not be affected by Friday's ruling.

'Sham' sessions

The court's decision will be welcomed by business groups that criticise NLRB decisions that make it easier for labour groups to organise new members. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations," Mr Carney said on Friday. "So we respectfully but strongly disagree with the rulings." Several Republicans hailed the decision by the three conservative judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. House Speaker John Boehner said it was "a victory for accountability in government", while Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said it would "go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers". Republican lawmakers used the pro-forma sessions - as Democrats have done in the past - to prevent the president from using his recess appointments power.

The White House argued that the pro-forma sessions - some lasting less than a minute - were a sham. On Friday the three-judge panel disagreed. "In short, we hold that 'the Recess' is limited to intersession recesses," they wrote in the opinion. "Considering the text, history and structure of the constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception." The Department of Justice hinted that the administration would probably appeal the ruling. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.

BBC News - Obama recess appointments found unconstitutional