Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Eleanor Clift: Will Obama Ever 'Fess Up to His Merrick Garland Mess? [View all]BumRushDaShow
(128,456 posts)93. The Senate did NOT go into "recess" and no longer does
And when Obama tried to do recess appointments for the NLRB while they were doing their "pro-forma" sessions, the GOP took it to the SCOTUS and the Obama admin LOST the case UNANIMOUSLY. The SCOTUS considers the Senate's "pro-forma" sessions AS being "in session" and not a "recess".
Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter
Posted Thu, June 26th, 2014 3:13 pm
Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English
With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters. And we did indeed, starting with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate. Lets talk about the decision and what it means in Plain English.
As unlikely as it sounds, the Courts decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was its first pronouncement on the scope of the presidents power to make recess appointments. And the Courts opinion was a mixed bag for both sides. Noel Canning, the soft-drink bottling company challenging the presidents recess appointments to the NLRB, and the conservative and business groups that supported it certainly regarded it as a victory in the sense that the specific recess appointments at issue were deemed invalid. But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point: the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten days.
<...>
The Court began with the first question presented in the case: whether the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments during intra-session recesses (breaks that occur within the two one-year sessions between congressional elections) or only during inter-session recess (the break between the two one-year sessions). Its answer on this question is a victory for the Obama administration and future presidents who want to be able to make recess appointments. Again relying heavily on a long tradition of recess appointments, it concluded that the constitutionality of a recess appointment does not hinge on whether it is made during an intra- or inter-session recess. After all, the Court noted, if the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause is to ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away, it doesnt really matter what you call the recess. If the Senate isnt there, it isnt there.
But theres a catch one that narrows the scope of the ruling. Even if it doesnt matter whether the recess is an intra- or inter-session one, it does matter how long the recess is. Here the Court said that any recess that is shorter than three days is not long enough to make a recess appointment necessary. And a recess that is longer than three days but shorter than ten days will, in the normal case, also be too short to necessitate a recess appointment. (The Court added that there may be very unusual cases such as a national catastrophe . . . that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response in which recess appointments would be permitted even though the recess was still shorter than ten days.)
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/
Posted Thu, June 26th, 2014 3:13 pm
Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English
With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters. And we did indeed, starting with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate. Lets talk about the decision and what it means in Plain English.
As unlikely as it sounds, the Courts decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was its first pronouncement on the scope of the presidents power to make recess appointments. And the Courts opinion was a mixed bag for both sides. Noel Canning, the soft-drink bottling company challenging the presidents recess appointments to the NLRB, and the conservative and business groups that supported it certainly regarded it as a victory in the sense that the specific recess appointments at issue were deemed invalid. But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point: the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten days.
<...>
The Court began with the first question presented in the case: whether the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments during intra-session recesses (breaks that occur within the two one-year sessions between congressional elections) or only during inter-session recess (the break between the two one-year sessions). Its answer on this question is a victory for the Obama administration and future presidents who want to be able to make recess appointments. Again relying heavily on a long tradition of recess appointments, it concluded that the constitutionality of a recess appointment does not hinge on whether it is made during an intra- or inter-session recess. After all, the Court noted, if the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause is to ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away, it doesnt really matter what you call the recess. If the Senate isnt there, it isnt there.
But theres a catch one that narrows the scope of the ruling. Even if it doesnt matter whether the recess is an intra- or inter-session one, it does matter how long the recess is. Here the Court said that any recess that is shorter than three days is not long enough to make a recess appointment necessary. And a recess that is longer than three days but shorter than ten days will, in the normal case, also be too short to necessitate a recess appointment. (The Court added that there may be very unusual cases such as a national catastrophe . . . that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response in which recess appointments would be permitted even though the recess was still shorter than ten days.)
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/
Ever since the ILK John Bolton was recess-appointed by Shrub 13 years ago, the Senate has pretty much refused to go into recess to allow that to happen again and thus as a standard practice, will have some Senator onsite to gavel in every 3 days during the times when they are out of town, so as to be considered "in session, subject to the call of the chair".
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
248 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Eleanor Clift: Will Obama Ever 'Fess Up to His Merrick Garland Mess? [View all]
BeyondGeography
Jul 2018
OP
Ridiculous. Turtle was not going to let confirmation hearings under any circumstances.
Trust Buster
Jul 2018
#1
That was not Clift's main point. Please read the OP. That was after the fact and would have changed
Trust Buster
Jul 2018
#6
It was basic math. The Republicans controlled the Senate and would not allow the nomination to
Trust Buster
Jul 2018
#11
He had the right to nominate anyone he wanted and to fight as hard as he could for his nominee
BeyondGeography
Jul 2018
#16
I could be wrong but there was a recess starting Jan 3 2017. Perhaps Im not the one needing to do
lancelyons
Jul 2018
#239
Well it looks like you have done your research. COngrats.. I still think that 3-4 months
lancelyons
Jul 2018
#243
Why do you think that Mueller has taken so long to find out that "the Russians wouldn't bother?"
ehrnst
Jul 2018
#133
Where did I say Russia "was changing votes." That's your strawman, and you keep on attacking it....
ehrnst
Jul 2018
#215
Who benefits from quashing the idea that Russians directly interfered with the election?
Cha
Jul 2018
#193
She was on the ground in PA and MI in the final week. As well as FL, NC and AZ.
StevieM
Jul 2018
#122
Because if he had mentioned it at the convention that would have made a difference?
EffieBlack
Jul 2018
#75
You ought to be Obama's retroactive Chief of Staff with that 20/20 hindsight
Blue_Tires
Jul 2018
#146
Actually, there has already been almost as much energy expended in this thread
BeyondGeography
Jul 2018
#221
The average voter wouldn't have known who the hell "Merrick Garland" was
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2018
#127
Ahhhh... ODS shit stirring courtesy of someone who is past her "best by" date....
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2018
#15
The "Dem leadership and many of its leading POTUS candidates." are not "journalists".
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2018
#26
If a fucking "man" had written that I would have said the same damn thing
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2018
#32
I have to seriously wonder what an R president would have done in identical circumstances.
Crunchy Frog
Jul 2018
#20
There is nothing they could do if they didn't have power and now that Collins and
Demsrule86
Jul 2018
#154
A sitting R president would certainly have made a gigantic stink out of it.
Crunchy Frog
Jul 2018
#173
For god's sake at least put the blame where it belongs and that's with McConnell.
Vinca
Jul 2018
#49
Once again a Democrat is blamed for a GOP bad action...not listening to this person again...tired of
Demsrule86
Jul 2018
#53
After we lost the house it didn't matter. And they plotted against him in inauguration day...
Demsrule86
Jul 2018
#89
Sequestration was a disaster for us...no one thought the GOP would got for it...but it
Demsrule86
Jul 2018
#153
I thought when defense was impacted they would too...but the extreme right are not typical
Demsrule86
Jul 2018
#166
If he had appointed a liberal darling, GOP would have fought them just as hard
EffieBlack
Jul 2018
#182
No, the scaredy cat Democrats should have stopped running away from him in 2010
BumRushDaShow
Jul 2018
#121
WTF is this? Unless someone can come up with a credible, workable alternative to what happened.....
George II
Jul 2018
#94
The evil smirk on the face of Mitch McConnell this morining at the press conference is the
mfcorey1
Jul 2018
#131
The REAL reason we are in the situation we are today is because JUST ENOUGH of SOME self- identified
still_one
Jul 2018
#162
Screw Clift, she's long ceased being relevant, like the rest of the McLaugh In Group. nt.
Mc Mike
Jul 2018
#220