BREAKING: 9:37 A.M. E.T. SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE ON PRESIDENT'S POWER TO MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS
Source: Talkingpointsmemo
BREAKING: 9:37 A.M. E.T. -- SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE ON PRESIDENT'S POWER TO MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS
No link yet.
talkingpointsmemo.com
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-will-hear-case-about-obamas-power-to-make-recess-appointments.php
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
flpoljunkie
(26,184 posts)ASSOCIATED PRESS JUNE 24, 2013, 9:39 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is stepping into an important constitutional dispute between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans over the chief executive’s power to make recess appointments.
The justices said Monday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that found Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board.
The high court case is the latest chapter in the partisan political wrangling between GOP lawmakers and Obama over appointments to the labor board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans want to drastically rein in both agencies’ powers.
The Constitution gives the president the power to make temporary appointments to fill positions that otherwise require confirmation by the Senate, but only when the Senate is in recess.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-will-hear-case-about-obamas-power-to-make-recess-appointments.php
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)knee jerk reactions sometimes can come back and hit you in the ass.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
former9thward
(31,987 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)to say the least.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)On one hand, it's Republican obstructionism.
On the other hand, Obama's like a dictator and Bush according to DU, so maybe we should be rooting for the Republicans?
still_one
(92,176 posts)allow it, and the usual suspects will vote against it
As far as I can see there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says this is illegal.
However, if they rule it is, then reid better pull his head out of his ass, and change the filibuster rules NOW
Igel
(35,300 posts)The question is whether the pro forma sessions count as sessions of Congress and whether the President has the authority to make a recess appointment while such sessions are taking place. The Republicans have argued that pro forma sessions count as sessions and disallow recess appointments.
The issue didn't come up with Bush. The Democrats in the Senate held pro forma sessions and Bush treated them as bona fide sessions. He didn't make appointments during those sessiond, even though it left a number of vacancies in key spots. Them's politics.
Obama, who supported the pro forma sessions when he was in the Senate along with the majority of Democrats, decided that they didn't really count and made appointments in spite of them. Suddenly the pro forma sessions that worked against Bush are to be ignored when they impede Obama.
The President has authority to make appointments if the Congress is not in Session. The Constitution doesn't say what's illegal--it says what the Executive branch can do. What's not permitted is forbidden. He has no authority to make appointments if Congress is in session, so that's forbidden. It's a saner, even if sometimes problematic way, of dealing with a situation that can change radically over time.
The lower court's ruling was pretty much nonsense, taking such an atomistic approach to lexemes in the Constitution that it totally subverts the Constitution. That's especially problematic with words that indicate a variety of semantic categories like "the" does, in which you have to look at pragmatic context, sentence-level syntax, and what the dictionary and text-grammars say. Deconstruction may be a nice hobby when it applies to nothing of importance, but when interpreting the Constitution you should bring a bit of good will to the table.
I take the lower court's ruling as a cry for help from a more authoritative body, like the SCOTUS. Let's see what they say. Be forewarned: Almost anything they say will be difficult to parse, and the first 10 minutes of reporting are likely to be near-gibberish, if only because it will explicitly with English grammar, probably be wrong, and most Americans have at most a rudimentary explicit understanding of their own grammar.
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A
Rank republiCON hypocrisy. As usual.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)
louis-t
(23,292 posts)I said this 10 years ago: "The minute we elect another Dem president, the neo-cons will suddenly give up their 'unitary executive' theory."
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)if they win this one. The next Republican President must not be so encumbered...
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and then it will be the law forever on.
Keep that in mind.
KEEP IN MIND THIS WILL BE NEXT YEARS COURT
And keep in mind WHO GETS TO PICK THE NEW COURTS
BEST ONE VOTE STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TO INSURE THE NEW APPOINTEES ARE NOT REPUBLICANS
blackspade
(10,056 posts)He will be doing the appointments.
ElsewheresDaughter
(24,000 posts)
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)Do they only vote on the Republican appointments to get more ears in the WH?
Too bad POTUS can't sic the SCOTUS on the Republicans for shutting down the government. That's basically what has happened, isn't it?
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)agencies their corporate sponsors don't want. EPA, NLRB, and ATF.
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)I don't understand why the Democrats don't spend more time getting this information out to the public.
They need to toot their horns more than they do on many issues.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)which will prevent him from making recess appointments when the Republicans want to play obstructionists.
The scandals and the clock, those are the two major factors right now.
There are so many scandals (doesn't matter if they are true or not) that the WH can't stay on message. Time, 43 months left. The Republicans are going to get a crack at impeachment this year or early next (and again it doesn't matter why). Things are going to get messy.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Seems like more than were hoping for Bush's impeachment around here lately.
The right will run out the clock on Obama with full support from many on the left.
Then we may get a Republican president. If so, the Republicans will fall in line to push the country further to the right.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)While the vast majority of us would just like to see Obama come through on his promises, five DUers want to see Obama impeached. I counted them. Really.
Unless, of course, my answer is as silly as the question.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I've seen a one or two. It is possible some of those are RW trolls. We probably have a fair amount of those.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)And most have a star next to their user name. Not many RW trolls, unless repukes contribute to this site.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The impeachment of Bush was discussed often for 7+ years here.
I can't think of single thread that I have read calling for Obama's impeachment.
And this "full support from many on the left" statement is just a RW talking point and not part of a fact based reality.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)on at least one occasion (it wasn't the entire thread) and I don't read DU nearly as much as others due to the other things I have going on. I do think there are some on the left right now that would support it, but not a significant amount.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Those are the things they like.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)To the brink is more like it.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)They will pay for it at the ballot box.
Angleae
(4,482 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(43,141 posts)and it's all a matter of privilege and power.
If you want to have a filibuster, get on the floor and let 'er rip!
If you want to stay in session, at least keep a member on the floor.
Lugal Zaggesi
(366 posts)going to limit it's ruling to just stopping President Obama from making recess appointments,
by putting in their "this case does not set precedent in any way and can not be used to justify any future court decision" language which they used in the Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) case where they handed the Presidency to the Republican ?
Because the Supreme Court probably figures that,
one day,
a Republican might get elected to the White House again.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)It is internet myth. Bush v. Gore has been cited many times since in equal protection cases.
aquart
(69,014 posts)former9thward
(31,987 posts)Who knows, I would have to do a search for you and I'm not doing that because I charge a lot of money for that. Here is the first google hit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/22/bush-v-gore-ruling-being_n_152986.html
Here is a few more if you are really interested:
Lemons v. Bradbury, 538 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2008)
Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2006)
Bennett v. Mollis, 590 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.R.I. 2008)
State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 588 F. Supp. 2d 828 (S.D. Ohio 2008)
ACLU v. Santillanes, 506 F. Supp. 2d 598 (D.N.M. 2007)
Whatever the number the point is the language cited by the poster I replied to does not exist nor is there anything like it in the decision. Completely made up stuff.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)This quote from the decision is what the person was referring to - ""Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Referenced in this article as meaning what the person posting said, though case history has seen it used to set precedence despite the court's wishes.
It is not an internet myth.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)The sentence is not in the conclusion but an aside similar to what the court puts in many of its cases. Every case rises and falls on its specific facts so nothing is an automatic precedent. No where does the court say it can't be used as precedent and no where is the "court's wishes" expressed as you are trying to portray it. Nice try to cover but fail.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)That didn't take long to descend to a petulant "is not-Is so" level. Are you twelve?
I show you an actual quote from a publication written by an actual member of the Supreme Court that backs up what the guy said, along with a link by a law professor lamenting the same thing, and this is your rebuttal?
Listen, kid, you match my Supreme Court justice and UCLA professor, and we'll call this a draw, at best. At this point, your ignorance is the fail.
But I'll tell you what. Why don't you just find a site as reputable as a UCLA publication (Snopes anyone?) that says the precedent issue is an internet hoax, and I'll give your missive the thought that it yet has shown it deserves.
Heck, I dare you to even do a search using the terms bush, gore, court, precedent and hoax, and see if that brings you squat.
Sheesh.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)You have a link to a blog by someone who doesn't like the decision. He is not a SC justice. I don't like the decision either but I am not going to make shit up. Courts don't like that. Keep digging....
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Is this some sort of coping mechanism? Somebody help me out here. Is this guy a person I should ignore, or does he actually ever try to make sense?
Simply claiming shit to be so, and facts to be untrue and blithely wandering through life is anything but satisfying.
The quote was from the majority opinion. What the heck is your problem?
Look, here is another link, if Cornell University is able to spit out a Supreme Court majority opinion then maybe you ought to recognize a basic fact.
Are you going to actually push this? I mean, seriously, you really sound kind of...off.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)You said there was a SC justice who had his own publication and commented. You said you linked to it. Who is it? These were your words not mine. All I got in response is 'word salad' which is a reference to another well known poster here. If you can't provide answers to things YOU put in your own post then yes, ignore me. Please. I don't ignore because I think it is silly. But I think it will help you get through the day. And that is what I am all about.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Just for the record, I never said "...there was a SC justice who had his own publication and commented..."
However, for your information, Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, including the portion I cut and pasted and to which many law experts have alluded, including the law professor to which I linked, as meaning exactly what the person upthread claimed. I don't know how to get any higher authority than a primary source, so it is obvious nothing except willful ignorant agreement on my part will satisfy you.
Second, there is little or no response from a search engine when doing a Google search on your so-called hoax. Ergo, there is no hoax.
Now I have enough experience to recognize when a person is unwilling or incapable of engaging in meaningful rhetoric, and this seems to be the case here.
So please, you are welcome to the last word, and I will just say I lack the training to help you out. I will have to politely go elsewhere.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
(6th paragraph from end of Part II-B)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Despite that, the Wikipedia article does say Bush v. Gore it has been cited in a number of cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Limitation_to_present_circumstances
former9thward
(31,987 posts)There is no SC decision you will find that says "this is the last word on this subject". All cases have their own specific facts and differ from every other SC case in the past. The statement you cited did not say it could not be used as a precedent as the poster SAID IT DID. The statement states the obvious: "equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." Yes because every case has different facts.
As I put in another post many cases have cited it since then. The Bush v Gore decision was written quickly because of the election and the clerks and justices did not have the normal time to draft and re-draft the opinion to clarify language. I like to go by the plain language of opinions and not stuff that people make up and put quotes around it.
Lugal Zaggesi
(366 posts)somewhere in every SC decision or are you making that up and putting quotes around it ?
My opinion was written quickly because I was just having a quick coffee and I did not have the normal time to draft and re-draft my opinion to clarify the language, but I was referring to statements in that landmark decision which meant "this case does not set precedent in any way and can not be used to justify any future court decision", as mentioned above - not those actual words in the decision.
I would have made that clearer if I thought anybody would read the comment and make an issue of it's imprecision.
So, you never answered the real question - do you think the Supreme court will try to limit their ruling to a narrow issue dealing with the Senate technically being in a "pro forma" session during the 2011-12 winter holiday break - or will they try to tackle the bigger precedent issue of Presidential vs. Congressional power for future White Houses ?
former9thward
(31,987 posts)But clearly other lawyers and other judges do not agree with you given the number of cases I cited by looking for them for a grand total of 60 seconds.
I think the SC will find that the Senate is allowed to make its own rules. That is in the Constitution. If the Senate says it is in session then it is in session even if no 'real business' is being done. The Executive is not allowed to question or make rules for another branch. Thus any recess appointments made during that time period will be invalid. This will mean chaos at the NLRB. The NLRB is already a pretty dysfunctional agency since every time an administration changes labor law shifts 180 degrees.
Lugal Zaggesi
(366 posts)Clearly lawyers and lesser judges are free to ignore the expressed wishes of the Supreme Court - until decisions are challenged and wind up before the Supreme Court again, then the SC might be rather angry.
I think the Supreme Court will try to avoid an outright showdown between the Executive Branch and the Senate, and try to decide something trivial on some sliver of the circumstances. As President Jackson said (the gist of it - these aren't his actual words, ok ?) about the Worcester v. Georgia decision: John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!
Remind me again - which branch of Government controls the CIA assassins ?
Senator Paul Wellstone mentioned the answer in a speech, but I can't recall...
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)And while this is undoubtedly politically motivated, it may be a good thing in the long run because Congress will not be able to hide behind the recess appointment process and not do its job.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 24, 2013, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)
makes its power too great. The Executive Branch is the weakest branch of government for a reason.
However, if we're discussing the executive's war powers, you have a point. However, Congress is there to put a check on those powers. If Congress is either unwilling or unable to check the executive's power, it is THEIR negligence, not the executive's.
Congress needs to do its job. I'm hearing President Obama scream this day after day. And Congress refuses to adequately perform its oversight function.
If you take issue with executive powers, call your members of Congress.
Anger and concern is misdirected. We should be livid at Congress's (in)action.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Repukes have managed to hamstring this President, and voters are too stupid to figure it out.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)It is the strongest, mainly because it is unitary. 1 boss is more effective than 535.
It also controls the military, and the military always gets what it wants in this country. Then there's the veto and the various spy agencies (which allow the President to dig up dirt on members of Congress).
I'm fairly confident asserting that the original design was for Congress to approve appointments. The recess mechanism allows them to play politics and not do that.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)outside of foreign policy. And even there, if Congress doesn't provide a check on that power, I can see where you're coming from. There have been moments in our history when presidential powers in foreign policy go unchecked. Still, it is the weakest branch, all things considered.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)The power over foreign affairs has had a tendency to grow and encroach (e.g., NSA spying).
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)...we must also agree that Congress must use those powers to "check" presidential authority in foreign affairs. The tools are there, but they aren't being used.
If you care, support Adam Schiff's bill that is meant to strip presidential authority in intelligence affairs.
Call your own member of Congress and ask him/her to repeal the Patriot Act.
These things require acts of Congress. Do you understand that?
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)since the founding have fundamentally altered the balance of power. It happens in just the same way this recess process happened: the President acts, Congress does nothing, and the Supreme Court rules that the practice has created a "gloss" over the Constitution.
Precisely because the President is usually the first to act is why that power has grown.
My main point here is that I probably support the Supreme Court stepping in and checking the President's authority here (it's not only Congress' job to do that).
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)make the law, not does he interpret. He merely *executes* the laws passed by Congress.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
shanti
(21,675 posts)sorry...
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Recess appointments only became an issue when the scary, black Muslim from Kenya became president.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)...for this one, just like Bu$h v Gore.
Can't get their way so they hafta run to Fat Tony Scalia.
Pathetic.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)The REALLY bad job is perpetrated by the RCons 
