Obama recess appointments unconstitutional, court

[jimnyc]

In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.

The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.

But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intrasession” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.

The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/

[ConHog]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/25/federal-court-obama-broke-law-recess-appointments/

absolutely the correct call.

[Marcus Aurelius]

absolutely the correct call.

you seem to be technically correct. Again.

:laugh:

[red states rule]

and of course on DNCTV - it was the Republicans fault
In a segment this morning discussing the breaking news that a panel of judges on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-court-obama-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-20130125,0,1401126.story) ruled that some of President Obama's recess appointments had been made in an unconstitutional manner, MSNBC's Thomas Roberts turned to network contributor and former Democratic Senate staffer Jimmy Williams for his reaction.
Williams conceded the the court had ruled correctly, but rather than chiding the president for violating his oath of office with unconstitutional appointments, he blamed Senate Republicans for driving Mr. Obama to do so. For his part, Roberts agreed, mumbling "mm hmm" in reply to the ex-lobbyist (http://www.jimmyspolitics.com/about-durbin-southcarolina-building-arts/)'s partisan swipe:

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/unconstitutionalmain.jpgTHOMAS ROBERTS, anchor: All right, so Jimmy, this is a victory for Republicans. What are the implications because this is not a good way to start for the president's second administration, to get this handed down.
JIMMY WILLIAMS, MSNBC contributor: Well, Pete's right. This is -- the court ruled correctly. The Senate was not in technical recess. And since the Senate was not in recess, it was not constitutional.
What does it mean? It means that everything -- those appointees, plus the appointment of Richard Cordray at the CFPB: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, anything that those two agencies had sent out as rulings now can be deemed invalid or null and void. That can affect all kinds of things from credit cards, interest rates, anything that those two agencies had done now is gone. It's over. It didn't count.
And so for the Republicans and for the chamber of commerce and other business groups, this is a big victory.
But there's -- that's a short-term victory. The problem with it is this never would have happened had the Republican senators not been filibustering these Republican nominees to begin with.
ROBERTS, in agreement: Mm hmm.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/01/25/msnbc-contributor-blames-republicans-obamas-unconstitutional-recess-ap#ixzz2J5H5here

[ConHog]

you seem to be technically correct. Again.

:laugh:

I usually am

:laugh:

you marry a lawyer you learn to use every technicality you can in an argument LOL

[aboutime]

Being married to a lawyer doesn't mean crap unless you have personally passed the BAR.

Otherwise. Anyone who pretends...like Obama, to be smarter than everyone else. Usually fools themself first.

[red states rule]

Being married to a lawyer doesn't mean crap unless you have personally passed the BAR.

Otherwise. Anyone who pretends...like Obama, to be smarter than everyone else. Usually fools themself first.

She may have passed the bar - Conman usually passes out at the bar

[ConHog]

She may have passed the bar - Conman usually passes out at the bar


more liberal hypocrisy from RSR.

Aren't you a recovering alcoholic? Didn't I defend you on this very board when OCA made fun of you for such?

PS - I don't go to bars , I occasinally drink at home, as is my right.

PS - Lie about me defending you when OCA called you an alcoholic. I'd love to find the posts and prove you are a liar.


Being married to a lawyer doesn't mean crap unless you have personally passed the BAR.

Otherwise. Anyone who pretends...like Obama, to be smarter than everyone else. Usually fools themself first.

I guess your definition of ignore is " be a pussy and take shots when I don't have to read the response"

Pussy

[Voted4Reagan]

in the entire history of the country NO PRESIDENT ever violated the checks and Balances and the Appointments clause in this manner. To unilaterally declare the Senate is in recess when it had not been declared such by the House of Representatives is unprecedented in American History.

Even if the Senate is conducting Pro Forma Sessions it is NOT in Recess and recess appointments are not permitted.

Obama horribly overstepped his boundaries and his powers...

[ConHog]

in the entire history of the country NO PRESIDENT ever violated the checks and Balances and the Appointments clause in this manner. To unilaterally declare the Senate is in recess when it had not been declared such by the House of Representatives is unprecedented in American History.

Even if the Senate is conducting Pro Forma Sessions it is NOT in Recess and recess appointments are not permitted.

Obama horribly overstepped his boundaries and his powers...

absolutely he did. Just unreal when he does this kinda thing.

[cadet]

I would not be surprised or annoyed to have him being the first impeached president.

But someone remind me, who get's put in charge if he is?

[aboutime]

I would not be surprised or annoyed to have him being the first impeached president.

But someone remind me, who get's put in charge if he is?


Wanna guess? Hint....4405

[Voted4Reagan]

I would not be surprised or annoyed to have him being the first impeached president.

But someone remind me, who get's put in charge if he is?

He would be the 3rd Impeached President

Andrew Johnson (Democrat)

William J. Clinton (Democrat)

and maybe

Barack H. Obama (democrat)

[Marcus Aurelius]

and of course on DNCTV - it was the Republicans fault


In a segment this morning discussing the breaking news that a panel of judges on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-court-obama-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-20130125,0,1401126.story) ruled that some of President Obama's recess appointments had been made in an unconstitutional manner, MSNBC's Thomas Roberts turned to network contributor and former Democratic Senate staffer Jimmy Williams for his reaction.
Williams conceded the the court had ruled correctly, but rather than chiding the president for violating his oath of office with unconstitutional appointments, he blamed Senate Republicans for driving Mr. Obama to do so. For his part, Roberts agreed, mumbling "mm hmm" in reply to the ex-lobbyist (http://www.jimmyspolitics.com/about-durbin-southcarolina-building-arts/)'s partisan swipe:
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/unconstitutionalmain.jpgTHOMAS ROBERTS, anchor: All right, so Jimmy, this is a victory for R:dance:epublicans. What are the implications because this is not a good way to start for the president's second administration, to get this handed down.
JIMMY WILLIAMS, MSNBC contributor: Well, Pete's right. This is -- the court ruled correctly. The Senate was not in technical recess. And since the Senate was not in recess, it was not constitutional.
What does it mean? It means that everything -- those appointees, plus the appointment of Richard Cordray at the CFPB: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, anything that those two agencies had sent out as rulings now can be deemed invalid or null and void. That can affect all kinds of things from credit cards, interest rates, anything that those two agencies had done now is gone. It's over. It didn't count.
And so for the Republicans and for the chamber of commerce and other business groups, this is a big victory.
But there's -- that's a short-term victory. The problem with it is this never would have happened had the Republican senators not been filibustering these Republican nominees to begin with.
ROBERTS, in agreement: Mm hmm.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...#ixzz2J5H5here (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/01/25/msnbc-contributor-blames-republicans-obamas-unconstitutional-recess-ap#ixzz2J5H5here)



But mommy... they MADE me do it!:laugh:


I usually am

:laugh:

you marry a lawyer you learn to use every technicality you can in an argument LOL

May God have mercy on your soul... or May Allah smile upon your camel... whichever floats your boat.

[aboutime]

May God have mercy on your soul... or May Allah smile upon your camel... whichever floats your boat.


Marcus. We all love Lawyers Deeply. At least I do. At least SIX FEET DEEP!

[Marcus Aurelius]

I would not be surprised or annoyed to have him being the first impeached president.

But someone remind me, who get's put in charge if he is?

You realize there have been other Presidents who were impeached, right? Impeachment is a process, not an end result.

There are two parts to this... Impeachment by the House, which is really just a formal accusation of wrongdoing... and a trial in the Senate.

The impeachment in the House requires a simple majority vote, while the trial in the Senate would require a 2/3 vote to convict.


Marcus. We all love Lawyers Deeply. At least I do. At least SIX FEET DEEP!

At least he gets to screw his lawyer, instead of his lawyer screwing him:laugh:

[aboutime]

At least he gets to screw his lawyer, instead of his lawyer screwing him:laugh:


:laugh: There's a difference? :laugh:

[ConHog]

At least he gets to screw his lawyer, instead of his lawyer screwing him:laugh:

she screws back LOL

[LadyGunSlinger]

more liberal hypocrisy from RSR.

Aren't you a recovering alcoholic? Didn't I defend you on this very board when OCA made fun of you for such?

PS - I don't go to bars , I occasinally drink at home, as is my right.

PS - Lie about me defending you when OCA called you an alcoholic. I'd love to find the posts and prove you are a liar.

Funny how people like yourself are the first to run whining and tattling when given your own medicine but attacks others on such a personal level that it's beneath the stench of raw sewage. Stay out of my line of fire or I will make you look like the utter FOOL you are.

[ConHog]

Funny how people like yourself are the first to run whining and tattling when given your own medicine but attacks others on such a personal level that it's beneath the stench of raw sewage. Stay out of my line of fire or I will make you look like the utter FOOL you are.

um what?

[LadyGunSlinger]

um what?


I didn't stutter Cornholio. I've taken the time to read over your posts. You spew an unsual amount of venom on this forum and then run like a biatch in heat crying if given return fire. Put me on ignore or don't.. Your choice but don't think for one moment I'm going to tolerate your emotional outbursts. I give better than I get so move along.

[Kathianne]

I'm wondering if the administration is really going to take this unanimous decision to SCOTUS, as nearly every media outlet is saying?

[LadyGunSlinger]

I'm wondering if the administration is really going to take this unanimous decision to SCOTUS, as nearly every media outlet is saying?

I believe Obama is soo arrogant that he won't be able to help himself and do just that. He's been thoroughly rebuked by the Appellate Court and that doesn't sit well with a tyrant. The question is, will the Chief Justice buckle or stand up for the Constitution this time? I believe we may find out IF the SCOTUS decides to review it. I personally think the ruling will stand.

[gabosaurus]

more liberal hypocrisy from RSR.

Aren't you a recovering alcoholic? Didn't I defend you on this very board when OCA made fun of you for such?

PS - I don't go to bars , I occasinally drink at home, as is my right.

PS - Lie about me defending you when OCA called you an alcoholic. I'd love to find the posts and prove you are a liar.

So what have you done for RSR lately? :rolleyes:
You never turn your back on people like this. They smile at your face, then stab you in the back when you turn around.
RSR's best friend is himself. No one else respects him or trusts him.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm wondering if the administration is really going to take this unanimous decision to SCOTUS, as nearly every media outlet is saying?

SCOTUS has already changed the wording in a law he signed (Obamacare), to change it from "unconstitutional" to "constitutional".

Why should he not expect them to change the wording of the Constitution itself, in the same way, to change what he has DONE from "unconstitutional" to "constitutional"?

Now that the Roberts Court has started using that word-changing technique, who's to say where (or if) they will stop?

[ConHog]

SCOTUS has already changed the wording in a law he signed (Obamacare), to change it from "unconstitutional" to "constitutional".

Why should he not expect them to change the wording of the Constitution itself, in the same way, to change what he has DONE from "unconstitutional" to "constitutional"?

Now that the Roberts Court has started using that word-changing technique, who's to say where (or if) they will stop?

a scary thought indeed.

[Kathianne]

SCOTUS has already changed the wording in a law he signed (Obamacare), to change it from "unconstitutional" to "constitutional".

Why should he not expect them to change the wording of the Constitution itself, in the same way, to change what he has DONE from "unconstitutional" to "constitutional"?

Now that the Roberts Court has started using that word-changing technique, who's to say where (or if) they will stop?

I'll agree, I never saw that other ruling coming. So if the administration plays off that and wins, more power to them. Seals the deal.

[darin]

I didn't stutter Cornholio. I've taken the time to read over your posts. You spew an unsual amount of venom on this forum and then run like a biatch in heat crying if given return fire. Put me on ignore or don't.. Your choice but don't think for one moment I'm going to tolerate your emotional outbursts. I give better than I get so move along.

back down - really. Put ch on ignore or otherwise fix yourself from this kinda cross-thread bullshit


-Admin

[red states rule]

I didn't stutter Cornholio. I've taken the time to read over your posts. You spew an unsual amount of venom on this forum and then run like a biatch in heat crying if given return fire. Put me on ignore or don't.. Your choice but don't think for one moment I'm going to tolerate your emotional outbursts. I give better than I get so move along.

Allow me to rep this post LadyGunSlinger. You are a shrewd judge of character. Or in this case a lack thereof


So what have you done for RSR lately? :rolleyes:
You never turn your back on people like this. They smile at your face, then stab you in the back when you turn around.
RSR's best friend is himself. No one else respects him or trusts him.

Thank you Gabby and I love you to. You heartwarming words are always touching and your civility is overwhelming

In Obama's society of victims it is always someone else's fault

[ConHog]

In Obama's society of victims it is always someone else's fault

Yes , witnessed by the fact that you liberals keep blaming other people for how some people behave on this message board.

Good point RSR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I believe Obama is soo arrogant that he won't be able to help himself and do just that. He's been thoroughly rebuked by the Appellate Court and that doesn't sit well with a tyrant. The question is, will the Chief Justice buckle or stand up for the Constitution this time? I believe we may find out IF the SCOTUS decides to review it. I personally think the ruling will stand.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LadyGunSlinger again.

Very true. -:beer:
The arrogant lying tyrant will increase his dictatorship because he respects only raw power!
His contempt for the Constitution shines clearly for we that are not blind as bats!-Tyr

I expect the rescuers to appear soon, to save somebody....;)

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm wondering if the administration is really going to take this unanimous decision to SCOTUS, as nearly every media outlet is saying?

of course they will. After all, the court only found against Obama because he's black.

[red states rule]

of course they will. After all, the court only found against Obama because he's black.

and MSNBC will lead the charge "reporting" how the Court is racist.

[Little-Acorn]

I expect the rescuers to appear soon, to save somebody....;)

I don't. It's up to us.

[red states rule]

and the far left moonbats are making excuses (and blaming the Judges) for Obama and ignoring the US Constitution http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022266506

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't. It's up to us.

Exactly. Here and out in the real world both! -;)-Tyr

[red states rule]

I'm wondering if the administration is really going to take this unanimous decision to SCOTUS, as nearly every media outlet is saying?

Of course. Obama usually take the advise of his base Kat http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/130125msminbedTFD20130125110830.jpg

[red states rule]

So now the NY Times has chimed in and is defending Obama for violation the US Constitution due to the actions of the Republicans. How dare the courts rule Obama must follow that out dated piece of paper!
For most of President Obama’s first term, Republicans used legislative trickery to try to prevent the functioning of two federal agencies they hate, the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. First they would filibuster the president’s nominees to the agencies, knowing that neither agency could operate without board members or a director. Then they would create fake legislative sessions for the Senate during its recess, intended solely to prevent Mr. Obama from making recess appointments as an end run. Astonishingly, a federal appeals court upheld this strategy (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/business/court-rejects-recess-appointments-to-labor-board.html?hp) on Friday. Mr. Obama had declared that Congress was not really open for business during its one-minute, lights-on-lights-off sessions intended only to thwart him, and he made recess appointments. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said his N.L.R.B. appointments were unconstitutional, buying the argument of Republicans that the Senate was really in session. The court even broke with the presidential practice of 150 years by ruling that only vacancies arising during a narrow recess period qualify for recess appointments.
White House officials said the administration would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but if it is upheld, it will invalidate scores of decisions made by the labor board over the last year. Without lawfully appointed members, the board would lack a quorum and could take no action, unable to police union elections or ensure that companies treat unions properly. That is exactly the outcome hoped for by business interests and the right, furious that a board under Democratic control tends to rule in labor’s favor (after years of ruling for business during the Bush years). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/opinion/a-court-upholds-republican-chicanery.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&pagewanted=print