Supreme Court rules unanimously that Obama’s NLRB recess appointments are invalid

[Dawnia]

pro forma sessions started in 2007 by the democrats, in order to block Bush appointments.

Obama, tried to get around the very thing his party started.

It’s the pro forma sessions issue that needs to be removed.

If the senate goes home for 10 days or more, they’re in recess. Period.

Jim

Harry Reid was the first to use pro forma sessions to block appointments, however that type of session has been around a lot longer than 2007. Volohke has an interesting write up on the history of the use of pro forma sessions.

 

[Memaw]

No more so than it has been for 200 years. The government seems to get its work done.

Sometimes its best not to see how sausage is made.

But we better know who’s making the sausage and what goes in it !!! God bless, Memaw

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Harry Reid was the first to use pro forma sessions to block appointments, however that type of session has been around a lot longer than 2007. Volohke has an interesting write up on the history of the use of pro forma sessions.

Yeah, this is what the article I linked said;

t was the question of pro forma sessions that had prompted the case.

Senate Democrats started the pro forma sessions in 2007 to prevent President George W. Bush from making recess appointments. Despite encouragement from his advisers to challenge the legitimacy of the sessions, he declined. washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-on-recess-appointments/2014/06/26/e5e4fefa-e831-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

I merely scanned through the article you linked, it’s too legalese for me, but it seems that it was used in the house. However, does this mean that Harry Reid first use it in the Senate in 2007 ?

I don’t know, but it seems like an abuse by the Senate going back to 2007. With the SCOTUS ruling against the president, future Senate members are assured of delaying and blocking presidential appointments.

Jim

 

[gamewell45]

The recess appointments decision leaves the President lots of power but says a three day recess was too short to make these appointments… pro forma sessions were valid

So now the law of the land is the president can’t do it. Ruling here:
supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdf

Washington (CNN) – The Supreme Court sided with Congress on Thursday in the high-stakes power struggle over presidential recess appointments, in which officials are placed in top government jobs temporarily without Senate approval.

The unanimous ruling by the court against the Obama administration could invalidate hundreds of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency at the center of this legal fight.

At issue is whether three people named by President Barack Obama to the board were ineligible to serve because their appointments were made while the Senate was technically in a “pro forma” session during the 2011-12 winter holiday break.

The Constitution allows a president to fill temporary appointments during a recess, without congressional approval. But more recently, lawmakers have sought to thwart certain appointments by never technically shutting down the Senate.

cnn.com/2014/06/26/justice/supreme-court-recess-appointments/index.html

SCOTUS has spoken and as such whether you agree with it or not, we all will have to abide by it. That’s the system we operate under in this country when we disagree on what’s right or wrong in our viewpoint.

 

[Dawnia]

Yeah, this is what the article I linked said;

I merely scanned through the article you linked, it’s too legalese for me, but it seems that it was used in the house. However, does this mean that Harry Reid first use it in the Senate in 2007 ?

I don’t know, but it seems like an abuse by the Senate going back to 2007. With the SCOTUS ruling against the president, future Senate members are assured of delaying and blocking presidential appointments.

Jim

Sorry. I picked out the interesting info. Pro formas have a long history of being used for genuine Congressional business reasons.

Yup, the Senate Dems used the pro forma first to block Bush’s nominations.

In any event, the use of pro forma sessions to satisfy various constitutional purposes is soundly based in longstanding practice. To be sure, the use of pro forma sessions for the avowed purpose of thwarting recess appointments during adjournments dates back only until 2007, when the Senate (controlled by a Democratic majority) used pro forma sessions to preclude recess appointments by President Bush.

Throughout the twentieth century, Congress has used pro forma sessions to satisfy this requirement. In 1929, the House entered an order to meet for several weeks on Mondays and Thursdays at pro forma sessions at which “there shall be nothing transacted except to convene and adjourn; no business whatever.”

Similarly, in 1950, the Senate scheduled several pro forma sessions “without the transaction of business of any nature” on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Finally, in recent years Congress has sometimes passed bills during pro forma sessions. For example, during a pro forma session on August 5, 2011, the Senate passed the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011. During a September 28, 2012 pro forma session, the House passed three bills. And on December 23, 2011, during a pro forma session, the Senate agreed to temporarily extend the payroll tax cut, which was the President’s highest legislative priority at that time.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

That is your opinion. Many of us like it because it follows the intent of how are three branches are supposed to work.

No it doesn’t. The founders never intended for the Legislature to eliminate the Constitutional powers of the Executive through the use of parliamentary smoke and mirrors. Its the Legislature run amok.

 

[Dawnia]

No it doesn’t. The founders never intended for the Legislature to eliminate the Constitutional powers of the Executive through the use of parliamentary smoke and mirrors. Its the Legislature run amok.

Blame it on the Dems, they started the practice.

 

[zz912]

No it doesn’t. The founders never intended for the Legislature to eliminate the Constitutional powers of the Executive through the use of parliamentary smoke and mirrors. Its the Legislature run amok.

Why are you pretending that recess appointments are the only way for him to get appointments made?

The Democrats control the Senate, and his nominees are noxious that even they won’t fight for them. Maybe if he wasn’t such a hard-core leftist, he could work with others as our country was founded.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Why are you pretending that recess appointments are the only way for him to get appointments made?

I never even implied that.

The Democrats control the Senate, and his nominees are noxious that even they won’t fight for them. Maybe if he wasn’t such a hard-core leftist, he could work with others as our country was founded.

If you want the Legislature to go to war with the Executive then we’ll see how much the next Republican President accomplishes.

Blame it on the Dems, they started the practice.

I appreciate the irony and hypocrisy of the GOP, incessantly wailing about the Constitution, being as giddy as school girls at being allowed to do an end-run around the Constitution.

 

[freeRadical]

No it doesn’t. The founders never intended for the Legislature to eliminate the Constitutional powers of the Executive through the use of parliamentary smoke and mirrors. Its the Legislature run amok.

Many of the founders never wanted a president or Executive Branch to begin with.

 

[Dawnia]

I appreciate the irony and hypocrisy of the GOP, incessantly wailing about the Constitution, being as giddy as school girls at being allowed to do an end-run around the Constitution.

Do you need a tissue? :bighanky:

 

[Trader]

Many of the founders never wanted a president or Executive Branch to begin with.

That may sound strange to us who have been accustomed to the increased power given to the Executive Branch since at least FDR, but it is true. It is no accident that Article One of the constitution establishes the Congress, and Article Two gives us the Executive Branch.

All of the founders would be shocked that so much power has been granted to agencies of the Executive Branch that pass regulations with the force of law with little (name removed by moderator)ut from the Congress, ie the HHS mandate to force individuals, businesses, and even church groups to violate their consciences.

It is also no accident that Article II, Section 3 requires the President to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” It is the principal responsibility of the office, and it has been frequently ignored by President Obama. This 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court only highlights the latest instance by the imperial president.

heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/98/take-care-clause

 

[zz912]

I never even implied that.

If you want the Legislature to go to war with the Executive then we’ll see how much the next Republican President accomplishes.

I appreciate the irony and hypocrisy of the GOP, incessantly wailing about the Constitution, being as giddy as school girls at being allowed to do an end-run around the Constitution.

The entire system of checks and balances is intended for the branches to fight each other, to keep them in check.

And funny how a unanimous decision is portrayed as partisan by you.

 

[ringil]

Many of the founders never wanted a president or Executive Branch to begin with.

So what?

 

[freeRadical]

So what?

What?

 

[ringil]

What?

An Executive branch does exist- that is our reality.

Who cares what the founding fathers- or some of them- envisioned?

I don’t get the whole obsession with what the founding fathers thought anyway.

 

[freeRadical]

An Executive branch does exist- that is our reality.

Who cares what the founding fathers- or some of them- envisioned?

I don’t get the whole obsession with what the founding fathers thought anyway.

Yeah, who cares what the people who came up with our system of government thought? In fact, who cares about the stupid Constitution they came up with too?

Yes, an Executive Branch exists and it exists because Article 2 of the Constitution allows it to exist. And it should follow the rules and laws set down by the Constitution, not try and circumvent it at every turn. Congress is supposed to have the power. That’s what the Founding Fathers wanted, that’s what the Constitution says, and that’s how it should be.

It’s kinda telling that we are starting to see the Judicial Branch put the Executive Branch in its place.

 

[mary_bobo]

I think it was self evident to him as well. IMHO, he was just trying to see if he could get away with it.

I agree. There are more occasions out there where he is doing the same thing. Having Holder as AJ sure helps a lot. If something the president does is a slap at the constitution, just sit on your hands and ignore it. Get administration we have here.